“Order Passed Without Determination ‘A Nullity In The Eye Of Law And Void Ab Initio’: Calcutta High Court Declares Bench Without Roster Lacks Inherent Jurisdiction”
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Calcutta, Three Judge Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak, Justice Shampa Sarkar, and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya held that an order passed by a Bench of the High Court not conferred with the determination by virtue of the roster fixed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice is vitiated by inherent lack of jurisdiction, rendering the order a nullity in the eye of law and void ab initio. The Court directed that the legal question referred stands answered accordingly. The Bench issued its final declaration in reference to the jurisdictional competence of Benches vis-à-vis the determination allocated by the Chief Justice under the principle of Master of Roster.
The present reference arose from FMAT 269 of 2024 with IA No: CAN 1 of 2024, CAN 2 of 2024, and CAN 3 of 2024. The appellants in FMAT 269 of 2024 claimed ownership over a specific immovable property by virtue of a registered deed of conveyance dated June 23, 2023. They also claimed membership of the tenants’ association of the building where such property is situated. The appellants, being concerned with the maintenance of the building, participated in a meeting of the association and learned about Title Suit No. 2602 of 2023 in which an interim order had been passed.
Subsequently, the appellants instituted Title Suit No. 1037 of 2024 and filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking interim relief. The learned trial Judge declined to grant ad interim relief, prompting the appellants to prefer an appeal being FMAT 269 of 2024 from the refusal order. On November 4, 2024, the Division Bench admitted the appeal under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and directed that the matter be heard on the legal question framed.
The private respondent applied for vacating the admission order dated November 4, 2024 on the ground that the Division Bench did not have the requisite determination to consider an application under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC for admission of appeal. The Division Bench then considered whether its order admitting the appeal was rendered a nullity for inherent lack of jurisdiction.
The issue under reference was framed as: “Whether an order passed by a Bench of this Court not being conferred with determination by virtue of the roster fixed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice is vitiated by inherent lack of jurisdiction so as to render the order so passed a nullity in the eye of law or void ab initio.”
During arguments, parties submitted that the question stood covered by the ratio in Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited vs. GRSE Limited Workmen’s Union and Others, 2025 SCC Online SC 582. The Court noted the earlier contrary view of a Division Bench in AI-Sumama Agro Foods Private Limited & Ors. vs. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Others (Manu/WB/0961/2021). In AI-Sumama Agro Foods Private Limited, it was held that an order passed by a Judge without determination allocated by the Chief Justice was void for want of jurisdiction.
The Division Bench hearing the present reference discussed the underlying distinction between “jurisdiction” and “determination.” While “jurisdiction” was held to be a fundamental legal authority vested by statute and Letters Patent, “determination” was seen as a technical and administrative allocation of business by the Chief Justice. The Bench recorded that, despite not having the requisite determination under the roster allocation to admit the appeal on November 4, 2024, such lack of jurisdiction was not initially brought to its notice due to bona fide inadvertence.
However, relying on Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited (2025 SCC Online SC 582), the Court observed that the Chief Justice of a High Court, being the Master of the Roster, has exclusive authority to allocate matters to particular Judges or Benches, and any order passed by a Bench not allocated such determination is rendered void ab initio. The Supreme Court in Garden Reach held that any adjudication beyond allocation is a nullity in law.
The Division Bench noted that even though the High Court has jurisdiction under law to admit and hear appeals, individual Benches exercise such jurisdiction only to the extent allocated by the Chief Justice. If a Bench hears a matter not within its determination, the order passed stands vitiated by inherent lack of jurisdiction.
The Court observed: “Since the lack of jurisdiction was not inherent or implicit, the order dated November 4, 2024 cannot be labelled as void ab initio or a nullity in the eye of law due to lack of jurisdiction but at best irregular.”
It further stated: “Jurisdiction is not conferred by the roster alone but is vested in a Court in terms of a statute and Letters Patent of a Chartered High Court.”
It recorded: “No Judge or Bench of Judges will assume jurisdiction unless the case is allotted to him or them under orders of the Chief Justice.”
Referring to Garden Reach Shipbuilders, the Bench quoted: “In other words, an adjudication, beyond allocation, is void and such adjudication has to be considered a nullity.”
The Court also stated: “While the High Court has the jurisdiction to admit and dispose of a matter, individual Benches can assume jurisdiction over the subject matter only in accordance with the allocation of business by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice on the principles of Master of Roster.”
Finally, it recorded: “An order passed by a Bench of the High Court not been conferred with the determination by virtue of the roster fixed by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice, is vitiated by inherent lack of jurisdiction so as to render the order so passed a nullity in the eye of law and void ab initio.”
The Court directed: “An order passed by a Bench of the High Court not been conferred with the determination by virtue of the roster fixed by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice, is vitiated by inherent lack of jurisdiction so as to render the order so passed a nullity in the eye of law and void ab initio.”
It further directed: “Reference is answered accordingly.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Mr. Harsh Tiwari, Advocate; Mr. Bhupendra Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Meghajit Mukherjee, Advocate; Ms. Brinda Sen Gupta, Advocate; Ms. Srijeeta Gupta, Advocate; Ms. Sonia Da, Advocate
Case Title: Shri Praveen Jain And Anr. vs. Tulsan Properties Private Limited And Anr.
Case Number: FMAT 269 of 2024 with IA No: CAN 1–3 of 2024
Bench: Justice Debangsu Basak, Justice Shampa Sarkar, Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
