P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved