Monisha Walter Pereira vs Rushabh N. Sanghavi — 208/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 21. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OTHERWISE on 11th March 2026.
MACP. DKST.
CNR: MHMT010019012024
Filing Number
1785/2024
Filing Date
23-07-2024
Registration No
208/2024
Registration Date
06-08-2024
Court
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Judge
3-H. H. Member
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OTHERWISE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Monisha Walter Pereira
Adv. Chitte S. Z.
Respondent(s)
Rushabh N. Sanghavi
United India Insurance Co. Ltd
Hearing History
Judge: 3-H. H. Member
Disposed
STEPS UNREADY
STEPS UNREADY
STEPS UNREADY
WARRANT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-02-2026 | STEPS UNREADY |
| 06-02-2026 | STEPS UNREADY |
| 13-01-2026 | STEPS UNREADY |
| 09-12-2025 | WARRANT |
Final Orders / Judgements
SUMMARY The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mumbai dismissed an execution application filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. seeking recovery of ₹11,45,483 from judgment debtor Rishabh Sanghvi. The tribunal held that while the insurer had validly issued a warrant for attachment of movable property, the warrant remained unexecuted and the insurer failed to take fresh, effective steps despite repeated opportunities over an extended period. The court ruled that execution proceedings cannot remain indefinitely pending without meaningful progress, emphasizing that decree holders must remain diligent and furnish concrete, actionable particulars. However, the insurer was granted liberty to file a fresh execution application with proper particulars regarding the debtor's current whereabouts, bank details, and attachable assets, subject to limitation laws. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mumbai dismissed an execution application filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. seeking recovery of ₹11,45,483 from judgment debtor Rishabh Sanghvi. The tribunal held that while the insurer had validly issued a warrant for attachment of movable property, the warrant remained unexecuted and the insurer failed to take fresh, effective steps despite repeated opportunities over an extended period. The court ruled that execution proceedings cannot remain indefinitely pending without meaningful progress, emphasizing that decree holders must remain diligent and furnish concrete, actionable particulars. However, the insurer was granted liberty to file a fresh execution application with proper particulars regarding the debtor's current whereabouts, bank details, and attachable assets, subject to limitation laws. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts