Delhi HC: Workman Cannot Claim Section 17(B) of the ID Act Wages after Reaching Superannuation Age  ||  Allahabad HC: Caste by Birth Remains Unchanged Despite Conversion or Inter-Caste Marriage  ||  Delhi High Court: Tweeting Corruption Allegations Against Employer Can Constitute Misconduct  ||  Delhi High Court: State Gratuity Authorities Lack Jurisdiction over Multi-State Establishments  ||  Kerala High Court: Arrest Grounds Need Not Mention Contraband Quantity When No Seizure is Made  ||  SC: Silence During Investigation Does Not Ipso Facto Mean Non-Cooperation to Deny Bail  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Cannot Re-Examine Answer Keys Even in Judicial Service Exams  ||  SC: Central Government Employees under CCS Rules are Not Covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act  ||  Supreme Court Holds CrPC Principles on Discharge and Framing of Charges Continue under BNSS  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Must Independently Assess SC/ST Act Charges in Section 14A Appeals    

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