9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ising out of a SCN issued more than 12 years ago would constitute condoning a blatant abuse of the process of law. The decision in the case of Chandrabhai K. Bhoir & Ors. Versus Krishna Arjun Bhoir & Ors. [2008 (11) TMI 660 - SUPREME COURT] relied upon. Petition not maintainable, dismissed - decided against petitioner. - W.P.(C) 5247 of 2016 and CM 21829 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 2-6-2016 - S. MURALIDHAR AND VIBHU BAKHRU JJ. Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naveen Malhotra, Ms. Anandita Sharma and Ms. Shefali Jain, Advocates for the Petitioners. Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advocate Mr. Satish Kumar, Senior Standing counsel, Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate for the Respondents. ORDER 1. The challenge in this petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cement Ltd. v. Regional Director E.S.I.C. Hyderabad (2015) 7 SCC 690, Shivshankar Gurgar v. Dilip (2014) 2 SCC 465, A. Jithendernath v. Jubilee Hills Coop. House Building Society (2006) 10 SCC 96 and Union of India v. Ramesh Gandhi (2012) 1 SCC 476 to urge that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is non est and void ab initio; that the defect of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and such a decree or order can be challenged at any stage even in a later or collateral proceedings. 4. Mr. Satish Aggarwala, learned Senior Standing counsel appearing for the DRI has filed a written note of submissions. He opposed the grant of the relief sought in the present petition. He pointed out that the impugned SCN stands adjudicate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed by the High Court on 22nd February 2013. This order was again challenged by the Petitioner in the Supreme Court by SLP (C) No. 1110-1111/2013 which was dismissed on 6th September 2013. 7. The Petitioner did not stop there. He again filed an application before this Court in 2016 for recalling the order dated 22nd February 2013 stating that he was now ready to pay the interest of ₹ 1,27,50,000/- in terms of the directions contained in the order dated 3rd February 2012. This was dismissed by the High Court on 4th January 2016. The Petitioner again filed SLP (C) No. 7741/2016 in the Supreme Court and the said SLP was dismissed on 6th May 2016. 8. It is accordingly contended by Mr Aggarwala that the impugned SCN challenged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner relate to cases of inherent lack of jurisdiction of the court whose decree is under challenge. They also relate to cases where the decree was obtained through fraudulent means. They include cases where proceedings are pending and a challenge is raised to the very jurisdiction of the Court that passed such decree. Here, however, the Petitioner is trying to initiate another round of litigation for the same relief after having been unsuccessful in the several rounds of litigation in which interestingly he never raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the officer who issued the SCN. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
