The objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Court must be raised as soon as possible, not after the adverse order is approved: Karnataka HC

The Superior Court of Karnataka has said that any objection regarding the jurisdiction of a court when judging an appeal must be raised as soon as possible by a part of a part and cannot be raised after the approval of the order that has gone against .

A single judge, Justice HP Sandesh He dismissed a request for review presented by M/S Renram Fashions India PVT LTD, which had moved after the single judge had reserved one of the ESI court that had partly allowed the statement presented by the company and modified the order Approved by the petitioner who paid a sum of RS.26,34,569, towards damage to the delay in the payment of the contribution for the period from January 2009 to June 2013.

The petitioner argued that the order dated 19.11.2024 approved by this Court suffers from lack of jurisdiction since the value of the appeal is RS.26,34,569. Referring to section 5 (i) of the Law of the Superior Court of Karnataka, 1961, it was stated that all the first appeals against a approved decree or order in a claim or other procedure, whose value from which it exceeds rs.15,000 to be heard For a bank consisting of no less than two judges of the Superior Court and other first appeals will be heard by a single judge of the Superior Court.

In addition, it was argued that section 21 of the CPC cannot be invoked and the Law of the Superior Court, annuls the CPC and, therefore, the claim of the defendant cannot be accepted.

The defendant said that if there was any objection, the same must have been raised in the initial stage and section 21 of CPC is applicable in all procedures and the affirmation of the petitioner’s lawyer that the Law of the Superior Court, 1961 The CPC cannot be accepted. In addition, unless the revision petitioner presents a case for the failure of justice, cannot seek the review of the order.

Recommendations:

The Bank pointed out that, according to the condition of section 21, the CPC, it is very clear that no objection will be allowed in the place of sueing any Court of Appeal or Review Unless such objection has been taken in the Court of First instance as soon as possible. opportunity and in all cases in which the problems are resolved in or before said agreement, less than there has been a consequent failure of justice.

Rejecting the request of the petitioner to decide the issue of the single judge against the list leads to anarchy and chaos. The bank said: “This statement cannot be accepted because when the matter was listed before the single bank that this bank means, hearing the matter, did not raise this objection and remained silent and argued the matter about merits when the order It has been approved and goes against him, this petition is presented only on the basis that this court has no jurisdiction. ”

The Bank referred to the judgment of the Apex Court dated 01.03.2025 in civil appeal that arises from SLP (c) nos. in the Court/Court of First Instance as soon as possible.

The Court celebrated: “In the case available, when the review petitioner was not successful in the appeal, present review of the appeal order only by the pecuniary jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court must take note of the realization of the Review petition in the presentation of this request for review. ”

Consequently, he dismissed the petition and imposed a cost of RS.25,000, paid in four weeks.

Appearance: lawyer Joseph Kanikaraj for the petitioner.

Lawyer C Shashikantha for the respondent.

No: 2025 LIVELAW (KAR) 28

Case title: M/S RENRAM FASHions India PVT LTD and the ESI Corporation.

No case: Review request No. 598 of 2024 in the first Miscellaneous appeal No.3185 of 2017

Click here to read/download order