AJEET SINGH (DAR) vs HINAN MANZOOR BHAT 45/ 25 DC — 712/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 281/125(B). Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED IN DEFAULT on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

MACT - M.A.C.T.

CNR: DLSE010080252025

Filing Number

3806/2025

Filing Date

30-Jul-2025

Registration No

712/2025

Registration Date

30-Jul-2025

Court

District and Sessions Judge, South-East , Saket

Judge

2-Po (Mact)-01

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED IN DEFAULT

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 281/125(B)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AJEET SINGH (DAR)

    Adv. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HINAN MANZOOR BHAT 45/ 25 DC

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: MACT No. 712/25 The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed petitioner HC Ajeet Singh's injury claim in default for non-prosecution. Despite repeated notices issued since July 2025, the petitioner failed to appear in court, citing medical leave and official leave as reasons. The court rejected these excuses, noting the petitioner was required to appear in his personal capacity as a victim, not as an official, making office leave irrelevant. The persistent absence demonstrated lack of interest in pursuing the claim, warranting dismissal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Po (Mact)-01

  4. 27-Feb-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    Misc. cases

    Po (Mact)-01

  6. 22-Jan-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  7. 22-Jan-2026

    Misc. cases

    Po (Mact)-01

  8. 30-Jul-2025

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  9. 30-Jul-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 30-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 712/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MACT No. 712/25 The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed petitioner HC Ajeet Singh's injury claim in default for non-prosecution. Despite repeated notices issued since July 2025, the petitioner failed to appear in court, citing medical leave and official leave as reasons. The court rejected these excuses, noting the petitioner was required to appear in his personal capacity as a victim, not as an official, making office leave irrelevant. The persistent absence demonstrated lack of interest in pursuing the claim, warranting dismissal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case