Avalon Projects vs Adjudicating Officer, Rajasthan Real ... on 24 August, 2021
A perusal of the order dated 7.7.2021 passed by the AO in
the complaints filed by the respondents no.4 reveals that the
appellant herein was directed to file reply to the complaints. There
has been no adjudication by the AO on the preliminary objection
raised by the appellant as to its jurisdiction. Therefore, the prayer
made by the appellant in the writ petition to restrain the AO to
entertain the complaints filed by the respondents no.4 has rightly
not been entertained by the learned Single Judge inasmuch as the
AO is yet to take a decision on the objection raised by the
appellant as to its jurisdiction. Direction of the AO to the appellant
to file reply to the complaints does not amount to assumption of
jurisdiction by the AO or rejection of the preliminary objection
raised by the appellant. It is well settled principle of law that a
Court or a Tribunal or an authority dealing with the inter se rights
of the parties to a lis has inherent jurisdiction to decide the
question of its own competence/jurisdiction to entertain the lis. A
division Bench of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has, in
the case of United Steel Allied Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Fairgrowth
Financial Services Ltd. & Ors.-MANU/AP/0109/1997, held as
under: