DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Savitri – Appellant
Versus
Keshav Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to mact order and jurisdiction. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding restoration and jurisdiction. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. legal reasoning on jurisdiction. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. restoration of petition affirmed. (Para 10) |
| 5. conclusion and directions for mact. (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
2. The Petitioners have preferred the present petition challenging the impugned order dated 30th January 2020, passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter, `MACT') (South East), Saket Courts, by which the application for restoration of the claim petition filed before the MACT has been rejected.
3. The brief background to this petition is that the Petitioners preferred a claim petition before the MACT for grant of compensation in terms of Sections 166 and 140 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988. In the said petition, Respondent No. 3-The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., had filed its written statement. One of the pleas raised by the company was lack of jurisdiction of courts in Delhi, given the accident, which was the subject matter of the claim petition, had taken plac
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.