'Assumption of jurisdiction to decide an issue which the adjudicator does not possess renders the ultimate decision “coram non judice”'

Very recently, the Hon'ble Calcutta High in Lloyd Insulations (India) Ltd. Vs State of West Bengal & ors. explained the rule of 'coram non judice'. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted herein under; 

"10. Law has been authoritatively settled by this Court almost half a century ago, duly approved by the Supreme Court nearly forty-five years back, that Courts ought to be careful to distinguish exercise of jurisdiction from existence of jurisdiction. However, the consequences of failure to comply with statutory requirements in the assumption and in the exercise of jurisdiction are fundamentally different. Assumption of jurisdiction to decide an issue which the adjudicator does not possess renders the ultimate decision “coram non judice”. A judgment pronounced by a Court without jurisdiction is void; however, an error committed in the exercise of jurisdiction does not result in the ultimate decision becoming void ab initio. An order of a particular kind which a Court has the jurisdiction to pass but which it should not have passed in the circumstances of the litigation does not indicate total want or loss of jurisdiction so as to render the order a nullity. "