Kerala HC: Applications under the Muslim Women’s Divorce Act Have a 3-Year Limitation Period  ||  Supreme Court: Property Transferred Before Filing a Suit Cannot be Attached under Order 38 Rule 5  ||  Supreme Court: No Review or Appeal is Maintainable Against an Order Appointing an Arbitrator  ||  SC: Terminated Contract is Not a Corporate Debtor’s Asset and a Moratorium Cannot Revive it  ||  SC: Cheque Dishonour Complaints Must be Filed at the Payee’s Home Branch under S.142(2)(A)  ||  Supreme Court: Bail Cannot be Granted Solely on Parity; Accused’s Specific Role Must be Assessed  ||  Kerala HC Upholds Life Terms For Five, Acquits Two in Renjith Johnson Murder, Says TIP Not Needed  ||  Kerala HC Orders Emergency Electric Fencing at Tribal School to Address Rising Wildlife Conflict  ||  Madras HC: Arbitrator Can’t Pierce Corporate Veil to Bind Non-Signatory and Partly Sets Aside Award  ||  Calcutta HC: Post-Award Claim For Municipal Tax Reimbursement is Not Maintainable under Section 9    

MACT not conferred with power to review its own order on merits- (High Court of Allahabad) (25 Aug 2015)

MANU/UP/1074/2015

Motor Vehicles

The Court dismissed a petition calling for a correction of an error by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in passing an order on the basis that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid licence. Subsequently, the Tribunal had held that it did not have the power of substantive review. The Court opined that while an omission, such as one to award interest from the date of filing of the claim petition, was a mistake which could be corrected, a re-examining of the issue on merits required an express vesting of power in the Tribunal before it was permitted to do the same.

Relevant : Pranab Dhar Vs. Rajesh Deb MANU/GH/0049/2009 U.P. SRTC Vs. Imtiaz Hussain MANU/SC/2406/2005 Pranab Dhar vs. Rajesh Deb and Anr. MANU/GH/0049/2009

Tags : MACT   SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW   ORDER  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved