Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

INDERMANI KIRTIPAL versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Decided
6 February 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 222 · 1996 INSC 189
Also cited as
  • AIR 1996 SC 1567 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

The petitioner has raised a jurisdictional issue. The learned single Member of the Tribunal has dismissed the petitioner's application in OA. No. 648/92 by order dated May 11, 1993. Learned counsel Shri D.K. Garg relies upon Section 5 of the administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, the 'Act') to contend that the single Member had no jurisdiction to decide the matter relating to promotion of the petitioner. His case is that he joined the Department as a semi-skilled workman and was later on appointed as Asstt. Store Keeper against OEP vacancy in Dehradun. When juniors and also seniors to him were promoted in OEP Section, he was singled out violating his right for consideration for appointment to the higher post in OEP Section. The case of the respondents is that he was in Maintenance , Section, though at the initial stage when OEP Section was a cell he had worked therein. Therefore, he was not' eligible to be considered. All others were transferred along with the posts to the Ordnance factory while he 222 l remained in Maintenance Section. As a consequence, they formed a class, the petitioner being a class apart.

pp. 222–223, margin E

The question, therefore, is whether the learned single Member of the Tribunal was competent to decide the matter. We are of the view that the member had the jurisdiction to decide the matter for the reason that it is not a case of initial lack of jurisdiction. Undoubtedly, the vice-Chairman of the Tribunal by operation of sub-Section (1) of Section 5 has been empowered to classify classes of cases and make sitting arrangements of benches for convenient disposal of cases; and he had ordered accordingly. Sub-Section (2) enumerates various categories of cases which the members would be competent to dispose of. When its member would dispose of which matter is one of administrative convenience; it does not relate to his jurisdiction. Even under Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code objections relating to pecuniary or territorial jurisdictional should be raised at the earliest and if the parties omit to plead and raise the objection, at a later stage, unsuccessful party would be precluded to raise lack of jurisdiction. Since the Tribunal consists of several members, a bench consisting of a single member may also be competent to dispose of certain matters. The matter having been decided by him after considering the case on merits, it is no longer open to the unsuccessful party to plead that the member had no jurisdiction to decide the issue of that the order suffers from initial lack of jurisdiction. It may be a case of improper disposal of the matter without touching the jurisdiction of the member who decided the matter.

p. 223, margin A

· Under these circumstances, we do not think there is any lack of jurisdiction warranting interference. The petition in accordingly dismissed. G.N. Petition dismissed.

p. 223, margin E