Suvidha Subhash Solanki vs Krishna Murti Pillai — 141/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 21. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OTHERWISE on 12th March 2026.
MACP. DKST.
CNR: MHMT010013572025
Filing Number
1040/2025
Filing Date
15-Apr-2025
Registration No
141/2025
Registration Date
12-Jun-2025
Court
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Judge
3-H. H. Member
Decision Date
12-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OTHERWISE
Last updated 29-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Suvidha Subhash Solanki
Adv. Salunke J. S.
Respondent(s)
-
1.Krishna Murti Pillai
-
2.Yad Hussain Sirajuddin
-
3.Shriram Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.
-
4.New India Assu. Co. Ltd.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
12-Mar-2026
Order on Exh.View PDF
Case Summary: Solanki v. Pillai & Others (Execution Application 141/2025) The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal disposed of the execution application after the High Court granted a stay order and the defendant insurer deposited the full decretal amount of Rs. 7,15,819. The Tribunal held that continued coercive execution (attachment/warrant process) was unwarranted once the stay was in place and payment made, though it reserved liberty for parties to seek further relief pending the appellate proceedings' final outcome. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
12-Mar-2026
Disposed
H. H. Member
-
21-Feb-2026
Stayed By Honble High Court
H. H. Member
-
18-Dec-2025
Stayed By Honble High Court
H. H. Member
-
27-Nov-2025
Say Hearing On Exh.____ready
H. H. Member
-
04-Nov-2025
Say Hearing On Exh.____ready
H. H. Member
-
29-Oct-2025
Say Hearing On Exh.____ready
H. H. Member
-
09-Sep-2025
Say Hearing On Exh.____ready
H. H. Member
-
25-Aug-2025
Say Hearing On Exh.____ready
H. H. Member
-
16-Jun-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
15-Apr-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 141/2025
Case Summary: Solanki v. Pillai & Others (Execution Application 141/2025) The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal disposed of the execution application after the High Court granted a stay order and the defendant insurer deposited the full decretal amount of Rs. 7,15,819. The Tribunal held that continued coercive execution (attachment/warrant process) was unwarranted once the stay was in place and payment made, though it reserved liberty for parties to seek further relief pending the appellate proceedings' final outcome. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts