Reshma Khatoon vs Iqbal — 345/2026

Case under Permanent Injuction Section 151. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 16th March 2026.

Case disposed

Misc DJ - MISC. CASES FOR DJ ADJ

CNR: DLSE010030272026

e-Filing Number

12-03-2026

Filing Number

1534/2026

Filing Date

13-Mar-2026

Registration No

345/2026

Registration Date

16-Mar-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, South-East , Saket

Judge

2-Po (Mact)-01

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Permanent Injuction Section 151

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Reshma Khatoon

    Adv. bhagwan jha

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Iqbal

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

    Case 345/2026 Summary: The court dismissed Reshma Khatoon's application for premature release of Rs. 5,00,000 FDR awarded to her minor son Faizan Tabrez, rejecting her claim that funds were needed for property purchase. The court found the applicant failed to provide supporting documents and noted the property agreement was unregistered and illegible, with the applicant being neither owner nor purchaser. Critically, the court determined the property purchase actually benefited the applicant's daughter Falak (who had attained majority in 2024), not the minor beneficiary, thereby failing to serve Faizan's educational interests and welfare. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Po (Mact)-01

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 345/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 345/2026 Summary: The court dismissed Reshma Khatoon's application for premature release of Rs. 5,00,000 FDR awarded to her minor son Faizan Tabrez, rejecting her claim that funds were needed for property purchase. The court found the applicant failed to provide supporting documents and noted the property agreement was unregistered and illegible, with the applicant being neither owner nor purchaser. Critically, the court determined the property purchase actually benefited the applicant's daughter Falak (who had attained majority in 2024), not the minor beneficiary, thereby failing to serve Faizan's educational interests and welfare. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case