JURISDICTION

Definition
Jurisdiction means the extent of power of a court to entertain suits and
applications. It signifies the power authority and competency of the court to
adjudicate disputes presented before it. It refers to the right of administering
justice by means of law. [Official Trustee, West Bengal vs Sachindra Nath
Chatterjee, 1969 AIR 823]
Jurisdiction means the power or authority of a court to inquire into facts, to
apply the law and to pronounce a judgment and to carry it into execution.
[Ujjam Bai vs State of UP, 1962 AIR 1621]
The definition of jurisdiction under Black’s Law Dictionary is : “ The power
and authority constitutionally conferred upon ( or constitutionally
recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of law,
or to award the remedies provided by law , upon a state of facts, proved or
admitted, referred to tribunal for decision, and authorized by law to bring
the subject of investigation or action by that tribunal, and in favor of or
against persons (or a Res) who present themselves, who are brought before
the court in some manner sanctioned by law as proper and efficient.”
Where a court lacks jurisdiction to try a matter, it cannot be created by
express consent of parties [Patel Roadways Ltd vs Prasad trading Co], ,
waiver [P Dasa Muni reddy vs P Appa Rao], or acquiescence [kiran singh vs
chaman paswan]. Similarly , it can’t be taken away by act of parties.
Where multiple courts have jurisdiction, parties may choose.
Decree by court not having jurisdiction is null and void.

LACK OF JURISDICTION AND IRREGULAR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION

Lack of jurisdiction = the concerned court has no jurisdiction to entertain
the suit.
Irregular exercise of jurisdiction = the court has jurisdiction but has
exercised such jurisdiction irregularly.
Ittyavira Mathai vs Varkey varkey [1964 AIR 707]
It was contended that decree passed by court was nullity as the suit was
time barred. The SC observed “if the suit was barred by time and yet the
court decreed it, the court would be committing an illegality and therefore
the aggrieved party would be entitled to have the decree set aside by
preferring an appeal against it. But it is well settled that a court having
jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit and over parties thereto
though bound to decide right may decide wrong; and that even though it
decided wrong it would not be doing something which it had no jurisdiction
to do… if the party aggrieved does not take appropriate steps to have that
error corrected, the erroneous decree will hold good and will not be open to
challenge on basis of being a nullity”.
“Lack of jurisdiction may arise in various ways. There may be an absence of
those formalities or things which are condition precedent to the tribunal
having any jurisdiction to embark on an enquiry. Or the tribunal may at the
end make an order that it has no jurisdiction to make.” [Anisminic Ltd vs
Foreign Compensation commission]

TYPES
- Territorial
- Pecuniary
- Subject-matter