SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top