Bihar Tender Scam: Patna High Court Bars Media From Calling Accused 'Scamster' Before Trial  ||  Gujarat HC Terms Plea ‘Wholly Misconceived’ and Imposes Rs. 2 Lakh Cost over ASI Somnath Survey  ||  Gauhati HC Differs on Whether ED’s ‘Reason To Believe’ For Property Attachment is Confidential  ||  MP High Court Grants Bail To Tehelka Journalist, Noting Implication After Exposing Foeticide Racket  ||  Patna HC: Possessing Cough Syrup With under 2.5% Codeine Without Authorisation Attracts the NDPS Act  ||  Madras HC: Person Who Converts to Islam Cannot Claim Backward Class Muslim Status  ||  Madras High Court Lays Down Guidelines For Surrogacy Custody and Parentage Applications  ||  Bombay High Court: Residence Proof is Mandatory For RTE Neighbourhood School Admissions  ||  Madras HC Strikes Down TN Law Mandating Registrar’s Title Verification Before Property Registration  ||  Bombay HC Allows Galli News to Report Medical Negligence But Bars Defamatory Hospital Imputations    

R.K.B.K. Ltd. v. Sushila Devi and Ors. - (High Court of Allahabad) (25 Aug 2015)

MACT not conferred with power to review its own order on merits

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved