chhotey lal vs vijay kumar — 142/2026
Case under Motor Vehicle Act Section 1. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 04th May 2026.
MISC DJ - MISC. CASES FOR DJ ADJ
CNR: DLET010007972026
e-Filing Number
05-02-2026
Filing Number
447/2026
Filing Date
05-02-2026
Registration No
142/2026
Registration Date
05-02-2026
Court
District and Sessions Judge, East, KKD
Judge
4-Presiding Off.-MACT
Decision Date
04th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
chhotey lal
Adv. gaurav dubey
Respondent(s)
vijay kumar
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Presiding Off.-MACT
Disposed
Misc. cases
Misc. cases
Misc. cases
Misc. cases
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 04-04-2026 | Misc. cases |
| 14-03-2026 | Misc. cases |
| 02-03-2026 | Misc. cases |
| 24-02-2026 | Misc. cases |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case 142/2026 Summary: Chhotey Lal's application for premature release of Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) was dismissed by the MACT tribunal. The applicant sought early encashment citing funds needed for his son's marriage (already solemnized) and a ₹10 lakh loan taken from relatives. The court rejected the request, finding that the structured disbursement scheme under MACT is designed to ensure long-term financial security, and permitting lump-sum release would defeat this purpose. Additionally, the applicant provided no documentary evidence of expenses or proof that previously released amounts were insufficient. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case 142/2026 Summary: Chhotey Lal's application for premature release of Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) was dismissed by the MACT tribunal. The applicant sought early encashment citing funds needed for his son's marriage (already solemnized) and a ₹10 lakh loan taken from relatives. The court rejected the request, finding that the structured disbursement scheme under MACT is designed to ensure long-term financial security, and permitting lump-sum release would defeat this purpose. Additionally, the applicant provided no documentary evidence of expenses or proof that previously released amounts were insufficient. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts