{"id":29380,"date":"2026-08-07T05:16:42","date_gmt":"2026-08-07T05:16:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=29380"},"modified":"2026-08-07T05:25:19","modified_gmt":"2026-08-07T05:25:19","slug":"container-corporation-v-rishi-ranjan-mishra-article-142-mact-jurisdiction-complete-justice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/container-corporation-v-rishi-ranjan-mishra-article-142-mact-jurisdiction-complete-justice\/","title":{"rendered":"Article 142 and MACT Jurisdiction: Did the Supreme Court Miss an Opportunity for Complete Justice in Container Corporation v. Rishi Ranjan Mishra?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

<\/span>Introduction<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court’s decision in Container Corporation of India Ltd. v. Rishi Ranjan Mishra<\/em> is, on its own doctrinal terms, unimpeachable. Reading Section 2(28) and Section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 together, the Court has held that a Reach Stacker plying within an Inland Container Depot is a “vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises”, and that the Depot itself is not a “public place” to which the general body of the public has a right of access. On that reasoning, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal never had jurisdiction to entertain the claim at all.<\/p>

\n
\n

Table of Contents<\/p>\nToggle<\/span><\/path><\/svg><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n