The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the CAT, finding no grounds for interference on merits and disposing of the petition.
Petition disposed of. No interference with impugned order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2041 OF 2006
Chhabinath Rajmani Choubey .. Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India & Anr. .. Respondents
Mr.R.G.Walia i/b Mr.G.S.Walia for the petitioner
Ms.Anamika Malhotra for the respondent no.1
CORAM : J.N.PATEL &
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.
DATED : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2007
P.C.:
. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the only issue on which he wants to
challenge the impugned order is that the CAT has no
jurisdiction in the matter. If this is the case of
the petitioner, he ought to have raised the issue
of Jurisdiction before CAT. Having invited the
order, now the petitioner cannot be permitted to
raise the issue of Jurisdiction. Even accepting
that CAT had no jurisdiction in the matter, the
2
impugned order would be nonest. The petitioner can
seek whatever remedy is available to him under the
law. On merits also we do not find any reason to
interfere with the impugned order. Petition stands
disposed of.
( SHRI J.N. PATEL, J )
( SHRI S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J )
Chhabinath Rajmani Choubey
Union of India & Anr.
J.N. Patel
S.C. Dharmadhikari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court