{"id":644,"date":"2020-04-23T10:30:07","date_gmt":"2020-04-23T10:30:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/?p=644"},"modified":"2021-01-17T04:03:37","modified_gmt":"2021-01-17T04:03:37","slug":"to-hold-that-an-order-passed-by-a-court-lacking-jurisdiction-is-a-nullity-and-is-non-est-order-and-where-a-court-lacked-inherent-jurisdiction-parties-cannot-confer-jurisdiction-by-consent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/to-hold-that-an-order-passed-by-a-court-lacking-jurisdiction-is-a-nullity-and-is-non-est-order-and-where-a-court-lacked-inherent-jurisdiction-parties-cannot-confer-jurisdiction-by-consent\/","title":{"rendered":"To hold that an order passed by a Court lacking jurisdiction is a nullity and is non-est order and where a Court lacked inherent jurisdiction parties cannot confer jurisdiction by consent."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Ravikiran Shukre | Manikchand Pahade Law College, Aurangabad | 25th February 2020 <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case: Antikeros Shipping Corporation having its office at 80, Broad Street, Monrovia Liberia, C\/o Eletson Corporation, 118 Koloktroni, St. Piraeus, Greece v. Adani Enterprises Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its office at 7th Floor, Eagle\u2019s Flight, Suren Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093 (Appeal no. 533 of 2019)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Facts\nof the case: <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. On 28th February 2008 an agreement was\nentered into between the appellants (A company incorporated under the Laws of\nLiberia and thereby outside the territorial jurisdiction of India) and the\nrespondent, a Company incorporated in India. \nUnder the agreement, the respondent, was to supply bunker fuel to the\nappellants\u2019 vessel M.T. Antikeros at Mudra Port.  On 5th March 2008 the respondent supplied the\nfuel.  12 days\u2019 latter, on 17th<\/sup>\nMarch 2008 a dispute arose between the parties regarding the quantity and\nquality of the fuel supplied.  On 3rd\nJune 2008 the appellant raised a demand towards damages in sum of $1,040,400. <\/li>
  2. The respondent denied liability vide reply\ndated 25th August 2008 and raised a Counter-Claim in sum of $90,325.00 towards\nthe adjusted cost of the fuel which was offloaded in United Arab Emirates where\nthe vessel was diverted. The agreement dated 28th February 2008 envisaged\nresolution of the dispute at Mumbai as per the Arbitration and Conciliation\nAct, 1996 (\u201cAct\u201d) before a Tribunal comprising three Arbitrators. One each to\nbe nominated by contracting parties and 3rd<\/sup> Arbitrator to be\nappointed by these two Arbitrators. <\/li>
  3. On 5th<\/sup> July 2012 the appellant\nfiled its Statement of Claim before the Arbitral Tribunal.  On 15th<\/sup> October 2012 the respondent\nfiled an application before the Arbitral Tribunal seeking disclosure of\ndocuments by the appellant.  On 23rd<\/sup>\nOctober 2012 the respondent filed its Statement of Defence and raised a\nCounter-Claim before the Arbitral Tribunal and while doing so raised no\nobjection to the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal or its jurisdiction to\ndecide the disputes.<\/li>
  4. On 25th August 2018 respondent\u2019s counsel\nsought an adjournment informing that the respondent had sought review of the\norder dated 21st April 2011 passed by the Hon\u2019ble High Court. On 28th<\/sup>\nAugust 2018 the Tribunal rejected the respondent\u2019s application dated 3rd August\n2018 and refused to recall its order dated 3rd July 2013 and 19th September\n2013.  On 30th August 2018 the respondent\nfiled a petition seeking review of the order dated 21st<\/sup> April 2011\npassed by this Court.   It also sought 7\nyears\u2019 delay in filing the Review Application to be condoned. <\/li>
  5. On 22nd<\/sup> March 2018 the impugned\norder was passed condoning delay of 7 years\u2019 in seeking review of the order\ndated 21st April 2011 and simultaneously recalling the said order appointing\nMs.J.K. Bhatt as an Arbitrator on behalf of the respondent.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Judgment:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    1. The Notice of Motion (L) No. 2015 of 2018\npraying that 2680 days\u2019 delay in filing Review Petition (L) No. 13\/2018 and the\nReview Petition have been disposed of by the learned Single Judge.  Both have been allowed.  The two appeals challenge the composite\nimpugned order, one appeal challenging the order in so far Notice of Motion (L)\nNo. 2015\/2018 has been allowed condoning 2680 days\u2019 delay in seeking review of\nthe order dated 21st April 2011 and the other Appeal challenging the order in\nso far review petition No. 13\/2018 has been allowed.   <\/li>
    2. Hon\u2019ble High Court held that, both appeals\nare maintainable regarding the impugned order having been passed in exercise of\nthe review jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge.<\/li>
    3. The learned Single Judge has recognized\nthe fact that under the Act no power of review is vested.  Though not specifically recognized, implicit\nin the impugned order is the recognition of the fact by the learned Single\nJudge that unlike the Supreme Court which is vested with a power of review\nunder Art. 137 of the Constitution of India, High Courts are not vested with\nany power of review under the Constitution. \nThe learned Single Judge has recognized the difference between a\nsubstantive review and a procedural review and has held that the power of\nsubstantive review must be vested in a Court by a Statute and in the absence of\nsuch power vested, no substantive review can be undertaken by the Court.  But, a procedural review inheres in every\nCourt and Tribunal to review its decision and if a procedural fault is found,\nto undo the same.<\/li>
    4. Where a Court takes wrong\/erroneous\ndecision of a matter and proceeds to pass an order on merits, an application\nfiled pleading that the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter\nwould relate to a substantive review being sought because the pleadings\nconstituting the review would relate to the substance of the nature of law\nbrought before the Court. <\/li>
    5. Prior to the amendment of the Act by the Arbitration\n& Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015 brought into force with effect from 1st\nJanuary 2016 when in sub-section 4, 5 & 6 of Section 11 of the Act the\nwords ‘the Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him’\nwherever they occur were replaced by the words ‘the Supreme Court or, as the\ncase may be, the High Court or any person or institution designated by such Court\n‘ , the position was that under the Act the procedure for appointment in case\nof sub-section 3 being applicable was to file an application before the Chief\nJustice of a High Court or any person or institution designated by him,  in a case of domestic arbitration and before\nthe Chief Justice of India or any person or institution designated by him in\nInternational Commercial Arbitration.<\/li>
    6. The impugned judgment has a reasoning\nwhich is rolled over with respect to the issue of 2680 days\u2019 delay to be\ncondoned. The learned Single Judge has held that by acquiescence and\/or by consent\njurisdiction cannot be conferred on a Court or an authority having no jurisdiction\nto take cognizance of a matter and because the learned Single Judge was\nexercising procedural review jurisdiction to correct a wrong by a Court of\nrecord, the issue of delay was irrelevant. \nTherefore, the learned Single Judge has not dealt with the sufficiency\nof the cause shown in the pleadings in the Notice of Motion (L) No. 2015 of\n2018. <\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      Hon\u2019ble High Court held\nthat, both appeals are allowed. Impugned order dated 22nd March 2018 is set\naside.  Notice of Motion (L) No.2015 of\n2018 assigned Notice of Motion No. 1015 of 2019 after disposal whereof is dismissed\nand so is the Review Petition (L) No.13 of 2018.  The torpedo fired by the respondent is\ndeclared to be a dude and it sinks without hitting its target.  appellant would be entitled to costs incurred\nbefore the learned Single Judge as also in the instant appeals which quantify\nat 5 lakhs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      <\/strong> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      Ravikiran Shukre | Manikchand Pahade Law College, Aurangabad | 25th February 2020  Case: Antikeros Shipping Corporation having its office at 80, Broad Street, Monrovia Liberia, C\/o Eletson Corporation, 118 Koloktroni, St. Piraeus, Greece v. Adani Enterprises Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its office at 7th Floor, Eagle\u2019s Flight, Suren Road, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":152,"featured_media":3144,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[58,26],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nTo hold that an order passed by a Court lacking jurisdiction is a nullity and is non-est order and where a Court lacked inherent jurisdiction parties cannot confer jurisdiction by consent. - LexForti<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/to-hold-that-an-order-passed-by-a-court-lacking-jurisdiction-is-a-nullity-and-is-non-est-order-and-where-a-court-lacked-inherent-jurisdiction-parties-cannot-confer-jurisdiction-by-consent\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"To hold that an order passed by a Court lacking jurisdiction is a nullity and is non-est order and where a Court lacked inherent jurisdiction parties cannot confer jurisdiction by consent. - LexForti\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Ravikiran Shukre | Manikchand Pahade Law College, Aurangabad | 25th February 2020  Case: Antikeros Shipping Corporation having its office at 80, Broad Street, Monrovia Liberia, C\/o Eletson Corporation, 118 Koloktroni, St. Piraeus, Greece v. Adani Enterprises Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its office at 7th Floor, Eagle\u2019s Flight, Suren Road, […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/to-hold-that-an-order-passed-by-a-court-lacking-jurisdiction-is-a-nullity-and-is-non-est-order-and-where-a-court-lacked-inherent-jurisdiction-parties-cannot-confer-jurisdiction-by-consent\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"LexForti\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-04-23T10:30:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-01-17T04:03:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/supreme-court-of-india.jpg?fit=460%2C259&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"460\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"259\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ravi Shukre\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ravi Shukre\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/to-hold-that-an-order-passed-by-a-court-lacking-jurisdiction-is-a-nullity-and-is-non-est-order-and-where-a-court-lacked-inherent-jurisdiction-parties-cannot-confer-jurisdiction-by-consent\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/to-hold-that-an-order-passed-by-a-court-lacking-jurisdiction-is-a-nullity-and-is-non-est-order-and-where-a-court-lacked-inherent-jurisdiction-parties-cannot-confer-jurisdiction-by-consent\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Ravi Shukre\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/3cd554da782183e9ad58819a54fbcbda\"},\"headline\":\"To hold that an order passed by a Court lacking jurisdiction is a nullity and is non-est order and where a Court lacked inherent jurisdiction parties cannot confer jurisdiction by consent.\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-04-23T10:30:07+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-01-17T04:03:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/to-hold-that-an-order-passed-by-a-court-lacking-jurisdiction-is-a-nullity-and-is-non-est-order-and-where-a-court-lacked-inherent-jurisdiction-parties-cannot-confer-jurisdiction-by-consent\/\"},\"wordCount\":1138,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Arbitration Law\",\"Supreme Court Judgement\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/to-hold-that-an-order-passed-by-a-court-lacking-jurisdiction-is-a-nullity-and-is-non-est-order-and-where-a-court-lacked-inherent-jurisdiction-parties-cannot-confer-jurisdiction-by-consent\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/to-hold-that-an-order-passed-by-a-court-lacking-jurisdiction-is-a-nullity-and-is-non-est-order-and-where-a-court-lacked-inherent-jurisdiction-parties-cannot-confer-jurisdiction-by-consent\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/to-hold-that-an-order-passed-by-a-court-lacking-jurisdiction-is-a-nullity-and-is-non-est-order-and-where-a-court-lacked-inherent-jurisdiction-parties-cannot-confer-jurisdiction-by-consent\/\",\"name\":\"To hold that an order passed by a Court lacking jurisdiction is a nullity and is non-est order and where a Court lacked inherent jurisdiction parties cannot confer jurisdiction by consent. - LexForti\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-04-23T10:30:07+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-01-17T04:03:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/to-hold-that-an-order-passed-by-a-court-lacking-jurisdiction-is-a-nullity-and-is-non-est-order-and-where-a-court-lacked-inherent-jurisdiction-parties-cannot-confer-jurisdiction-by-consent\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/to-hold-that-an-order-passed-by-a-court-lacking-jurisdiction-is-a-nullity-and-is-non-est-order-and-where-a-court-lacked-inherent-jurisdiction-parties-cannot-confer-jurisdiction-by-consent\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/to-hold-that-an-order-passed-by-a-court-lacking-jurisdiction-is-a-nullity-and-is-non-est-order-and-where-a-court-lacked-inherent-jurisdiction-parties-cannot-confer-jurisdiction-by-consent\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"To hold that an order passed by a Court lacking jurisdiction is a nullity and is non-est order and where a Court lacked inherent jurisdiction parties cannot confer jurisdiction by consent.\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"LexForti\",\"description\":\"Legal\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization\",\"name\":\"LexForti Legal News & Journal\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/159134300345793876.png?fit=404%2C404&ssl=1\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/159134300345793876.png?fit=404%2C404&ssl=1\",\"width\":404,\"height\":404,\"caption\":\"LexForti Legal News & Journal\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\/\",\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/lexforti\/\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/lex-forti\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/3cd554da782183e9ad58819a54fbcbda\",\"name\":\"Ravi Shukre\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/159134300345793876-96x96.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/159134300345793876-96x96.png\",\"caption\":\"Ravi Shukre\"},\"description\":\"NLC V Year Student at Manikchand Pahade Law College, Aurangabad. Currently working as a Student Contributor for the Maharashtra State with a group of activists, researchers, lawyers to make summaries of the Govt. Orders during the pandemic through a web-portal, so that, to make orders available with user friendly interface and summaries. Editor at JudicateMe Law Journal. Editor of the book \\\"Compilation of Cases on Civil Contempt of Court\\\" published in 2019.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/covid-india.in\/\",\"https:\/\/instagram.com\/ravikiranshukre?igshid=hmzvhzwzjo1b\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/author\/ravi-shukre\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"To hold that an order passed by a Court lacking jurisdiction is a nullity and is non-est order and where a Court lacked inherent jurisdiction parties cannot confer jurisdiction by consent. - LexForti","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/to-hold-that-an-order-passed-by-a-court-lacking-jurisdiction-is-a-nullity-and-is-non-est-order-and-where-a-court-lacked-inherent-jurisdiction-parties-cannot-confer-jurisdiction-by-consent\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"To hold that an order passed by a Court lacking jurisdiction is a nullity and is non-est order and where a Court lacked inherent jurisdiction parties cannot confer jurisdiction by consent. - LexForti","og_description":"Ravikiran Shukre | Manikchand Pahade Law College, Aurangabad | 25th February 2020  Case: Antikeros Shipping Corporation having its office at 80, Broad Street, Monrovia Liberia, C\/o Eletson Corporation, 118 Koloktroni, St. Piraeus, Greece v. Adani Enterprises Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its office at 7th Floor, Eagle\u2019s Flight, Suren Road, […]","og_url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/to-hold-that-an-order-passed-by-a-court-lacking-jurisdiction-is-a-nullity-and-is-non-est-order-and-where-a-court-lacked-inherent-jurisdiction-parties-cannot-confer-jurisdiction-by-consent\/","og_site_name":"LexForti","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\/","article_published_time":"2020-04-23T10:30:07+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-01-17T04:03:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":460,"height":259,"url":"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/supreme-court-of-india.jpg?fit=460%2C259&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ravi Shukre","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ravi Shukre","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/to-hold-that-an-order-passed-by-a-court-lacking-jurisdiction-is-a-nullity-and-is-non-est-order-and-where-a-court-lacked-inherent-jurisdiction-parties-cannot-confer-jurisdiction-by-consent\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/to-hold-that-an-order-passed-by-a-court-lacking-jurisdiction-is-a-nullity-and-is-non-est-order-and-where-a-court-lacked-inherent-jurisdiction-parties-cannot-confer-jurisdiction-by-consent\/"},"author":{"name":"Ravi Shukre","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/3cd554da782183e9ad58819a54fbcbda"},"headline":"To hold that an order passed by a Court lacking jurisdiction is a nullity and is non-est order and where a Court lacked inherent jurisdiction parties cannot confer jurisdiction by consent.","datePublished":"2020-04-23T10:30:07+00:00","dateModified":"2021-01-17T04:03:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/to-hold-that-an-order-passed-by-a-court-lacking-jurisdiction-is-a-nullity-and-is-non-est-order-and-where-a-court-lacked-inherent-jurisdiction-parties-cannot-confer-jurisdiction-by-consent\/"},"wordCount":1138,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Arbitration Law","Supreme Court Judgement"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/to-hold-that-an-order-passed-by-a-court-lacking-jurisdiction-is-a-nullity-and-is-non-est-order-and-where-a-court-lacked-inherent-jurisdiction-parties-cannot-confer-jurisdiction-by-consent\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/to-hold-that-an-order-passed-by-a-court-lacking-jurisdiction-is-a-nullity-and-is-non-est-order-and-where-a-court-lacked-inherent-jurisdiction-parties-cannot-confer-jurisdiction-by-consent\/","url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/to-hold-that-an-order-passed-by-a-court-lacking-jurisdiction-is-a-nullity-and-is-non-est-order-and-where-a-court-lacked-inherent-jurisdiction-parties-cannot-confer-jurisdiction-by-consent\/","name":"To hold that an order passed by a Court lacking jurisdiction is a nullity and is non-est order and where a Court lacked inherent jurisdiction parties cannot confer jurisdiction by consent. - LexForti","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-04-23T10:30:07+00:00","dateModified":"2021-01-17T04:03:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/to-hold-that-an-order-passed-by-a-court-lacking-jurisdiction-is-a-nullity-and-is-non-est-order-and-where-a-court-lacked-inherent-jurisdiction-parties-cannot-confer-jurisdiction-by-consent\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/to-hold-that-an-order-passed-by-a-court-lacking-jurisdiction-is-a-nullity-and-is-non-est-order-and-where-a-court-lacked-inherent-jurisdiction-parties-cannot-confer-jurisdiction-by-consent\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/to-hold-that-an-order-passed-by-a-court-lacking-jurisdiction-is-a-nullity-and-is-non-est-order-and-where-a-court-lacked-inherent-jurisdiction-parties-cannot-confer-jurisdiction-by-consent\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"To hold that an order passed by a Court lacking jurisdiction is a nullity and is non-est order and where a Court lacked inherent jurisdiction parties cannot confer jurisdiction by consent."}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#website","url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/","name":"LexForti","description":"Legal","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization","name":"LexForti Legal News & Journal","url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/159134300345793876.png?fit=404%2C404&ssl=1","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/159134300345793876.png?fit=404%2C404&ssl=1","width":404,"height":404,"caption":"LexForti Legal News & Journal"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\/","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/lexforti\/","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/lex-forti\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/3cd554da782183e9ad58819a54fbcbda","name":"Ravi Shukre","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/159134300345793876-96x96.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/159134300345793876-96x96.png","caption":"Ravi Shukre"},"description":"NLC V Year Student at Manikchand Pahade Law College, Aurangabad. Currently working as a Student Contributor for the Maharashtra State with a group of activists, researchers, lawyers to make summaries of the Govt. Orders during the pandemic through a web-portal, so that, to make orders available with user friendly interface and summaries. Editor at JudicateMe Law Journal. Editor of the book \"Compilation of Cases on Civil Contempt of Court\" published in 2019.","sameAs":["https:\/\/covid-india.in\/","https:\/\/instagram.com\/ravikiranshukre?igshid=hmzvhzwzjo1b"],"url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/author\/ravi-shukre\/"}]}},"views":152,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/644"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/152"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=644"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/644\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7116,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/644\/revisions\/7116"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3144"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=644"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=644"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=644"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}