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

Case disposed

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

Code of Civil Procedure Section 21

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

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

11-03-2026
Order on Exh.

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case