Tribunal Denies Rectification Request in Pump Case, Base Frame Deemed Accessory, Not Integral The Tribunal rejected the miscellaneous application for rectification of mistake in the final order dated 19.08.2015. The appellant's argument regarding ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Tribunal Denies Rectification Request in Pump Case, Base Frame Deemed Accessory, Not Integral
The Tribunal rejected the miscellaneous application for rectification of mistake in the final order dated 19.08.2015. The appellant's argument regarding the base frame being an integral part of the pump was deemed unacceptable. The Tribunal concluded that the base frame was merely an accessory, not integral to the pump. All submissions during the final disposal were duly considered, leading to the determination that there was no error in the final order. The application was dismissed, with the judgment delivered by Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial), and Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical).
Issues: Rectification of Mistake in Final Order
Analysis: The case involved an application for rectification of mistake in the final order dated 19.08.2015. The appellant's counsel argued that the matter was remanded back to the lower authorities previously, and in the subsequent round of litigation, various documents and photographs were presented to support the claim that the base frame is an integral part of the pump. Reference was made to a Supreme Court case emphasizing the consideration of material evidence for rectification of mistake. The Departmental Representative supported the Tribunal's order.
Upon review, the Tribunal found the submissions of the appellant's counsel unacceptable for multiple reasons. It was noted that the entire issue had been considered in detail in the final order, from paragraph 5 to paragraph 8. The Tribunal concluded that the base frame was not an integral part of the pump but merely an accessory. It was highlighted that all submissions made by the counsel during the final disposal were duly considered and recorded in the order. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that there was no error in the final order, let alone an error apparent on the face of the record.
Ultimately, the miscellaneous application for rectification of mistake was rejected by the Tribunal. The judgment was delivered by Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial), and Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical).
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.