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

Case disposed

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

Motor Vehicle Act Section 1

Petitioner(s)

chhotey lal

Adv. gaurav dubey

Respondent(s)

vijay kumar

Hearing History

Judge: 4-Presiding Off.-MACT

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

04-05-2026
COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

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

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

District and Sessions Judge, East, KKD All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case