SURESHBHAI MAGANBHAI PRAJAPATI vs ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD — 454/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 141. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 18th May 2026.

Case disposed

MACMA - MAC MISC. APPLICATION

CNR: GJKH010013622026

Filing Number

454/2026

Filing Date

03-Mar-2026

Registration No

454/2026

Registration Date

03-Mar-2026

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NADIAD

Judge

5-3rd Addl District Judge

Decision Date

18-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED

Last updated 09-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 141

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SURESHBHAI MAGANBHAI PRAJAPATI

    Adv. M N SHAH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-May-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Nadiad ordered the disbursement of ₹3,64,308.00 to applicant Sureshbhai Maganbhai Prajapati: ₹1,09,292.00 to be paid directly via RTGS/NEFT to his bank account, and ₹2,55,016.00 to be deposited as a fixed deposit for five years with periodic interest payments to the applicant. The bank is prohibited from releasing the fixed deposit or granting loans against it before maturity without tribunal permission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-May-2026

    Disposed

    3rd Addl District Judge

  4. 14-May-2026

    Hearing

    4th Addl District Judge

  5. 01-May-2026

    Hearing

    4th Addl District Judge

  6. 22-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    4th Addl District Judge

  7. 25-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    4th Addl District Judge

  8. 10-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 03-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 454/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Nadiad ordered the disbursement of ₹3,64,308.00 to applicant Sureshbhai Maganbhai Prajapati: ₹1,09,292.00 to be paid directly via RTGS/NEFT to his bank account, and ₹2,55,016.00 to be deposited as a fixed deposit for five years with periodic interest payments to the applicant. The bank is prohibited from releasing the fixed deposit or granting loans against it before maturity without tribunal permission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case