GEM TEXTILE PVT LTD Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHORT but interesting question of law arising in this petition is viz., 'Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal has any jurisdiction to entertain the counter claim or not?' If, 'No', then Tribunal was justified in reviewing its own earlier order?

(2.) IN this case, the Tribunal by its earlier order dated 11.6.1996 (Annex. 3) held that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide the counter claim. The said order was subsequently reviewed by the Tribunal by its order dated 5.6.1998 (Annex.6). The same is challenged by the petitioner - original defendant in a suit filed by the Bank before the Tribunal.

(3.) IN view of the above, when the Bank filed a review petition before the Tribunal for reviewing its earlier order dated 11.6.1996, then in my opinion, the Tribunal had no option but to review its earlier order. It is true that the review petition was filed late but the review petition could have been filed only after the provision of review was made in the Rules. It is also true that the Court or the Tribunal should not lightly review its own orders. But, when the question of jurisdiction is there and there is a pronouncement from the competent court about the jurisdiction to entertain counter -claim then, in my opinion, the Tribunal had to review its earlier order because it had no jurisdiction and it was going to the root of the matter. The question involved in this matter is of jurisdiction and it is well settled that no court can entertain a matter when it has no jurisdiction.