Balasaheb Keshav Mandalik vs Pankaj Ramanlal Sugandhi — 82/2025
Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section 166. Disposed: Uncontested--LOKADALAT on 14th March 2026.
M.A.C.P. - Motor Accident Claim Petition
CNR: MHTH010003142025
e-Filing Number
13-01-2025
Filing Number
121/2025
Filing Date
13-01-2025
Registration No
82/2025
Registration Date
15-01-2025
Court
District and Session Court , Thane
Judge
5-Extra Jt. District Judge Addl. Sessions Judge as Member MACT, Thane
Decision Date
14th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--LOKADALAT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Balasaheb Keshav Mandalik
Adv. SINGH VRIJESH KESHAVE
Kamal Balasaheb Mandalik
Adv. SINGH VRIJESH KESHAVE
Respondent(s)
Pankaj Ramanlal Sugandhi
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Extra Jt. District Judge Addl. Sessions Judge as Member MACT, Thane
Disposed
Lok-Nyayalaya
Lok-Nyayalaya
Written Statement
Written Statement
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 14-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Lok-Nyayalaya |
| 04-02-2026 | Lok-Nyayalaya |
| 27-10-2025 | Written Statement |
| 14-07-2025 | Written Statement |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Lok Adalat, Thane settled a dispute between petitioners Balasaheb Keshav Mandalik and Kamal Balasaheb Mandalik against respondent Pankaj Ramanlal Sugandhi and an insurer by awarding Rs. 17,00,000 as full and final settlement. The insurer must deposit this amount within one month (subject to 9% interest if delayed), with 40% of each petitioner's share held in a fixed deposit for three years, and the petitioners entitled to a full refund of court fees paid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Lok Adalat, Thane settled a dispute between petitioners Balasaheb Keshav Mandalik and Kamal Balasaheb Mandalik against respondent Pankaj Ramanlal Sugandhi and an insurer by awarding Rs. 17,00,000 as full and final settlement. The insurer must deposit this amount within one month (subject to 9% interest if delayed), with 40% of each petitioner's share held in a fixed deposit for three years, and the petitioners entitled to a full refund of court fees paid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts