Supreme Court: Companies Can Face Prosecution Without Individual Officers Being Named  ||  SC: Penalties on Insolvent Developers cannot be Recovered from Homebuyers as CIRP Costs  ||  Allahabad HC: ‘Sar Tan Se Juda’ Hits Sovereignty, Unlike ‘Allahu-Akbar’, ‘Jai Shri Ram’  ||  Kerala High Court: Married Woman Cannot Claim Sex Was Based Solely on Promise of Marriage  ||  Madras High Court Refuses Equal Recitation of Tamil Hymns With Sanskrit at Meenakshi Temple  ||  Delhi HC: Absence of ‘Penetration’ In Child Victim’s Testimony Not Enough to Acquit Rape Accused  ||  J&K High Court: Possession of Allegedly Anti-National Book Cannot Justify Preventive Detention  ||  Delhi High Court: DNA Evidence Proves Sexual Intercourse, Not Consent  ||  Madras High Court Upholds Appointment of District Judges as Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Secretary  ||  Allahabad High Court: IO’s Mere Apprehension Cannot Justify Withholding Seized Items    

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