SHA CHAGANLAL @ CHAGAN RAJ vs SRI MARAPATLA VENKATESULU AND ANOTHER Advocate - K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC, ,K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC — MACMA/2208/2006
Next hearing: 30th June 2026.
CNR: APHC010381432006
Filing Number
MACMA/28865/2005
Filing Date
03-Aug-2005
Registration No
MACMA/2208/2006
Registration Date
24-Oct-2006
Judge
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
Coram
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
MACMA ( 18 )
Sub-Category
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISC. APPEALS ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
CIVIL Section
Last updated 20-Jun-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SHA CHAGANLAL @ CHAGAN RAJ
Adv. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO
Respondent(s)
-
1.SRI MARAPATLA VENKATESULU AND ANOTHER Advocate - K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC, ,K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC
-
2.APSRTC,
Case History
-
30-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
30-Jun-2026
Final Hearing
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
-
19-Jun-2026
Venkata Jyothirmai PratapaView PDF
MACMA/2208/2006 Summary: On 19.06.2026, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed the registry to update legal representation in the case, deleting K. Satyanarayan Murthy's name and substituting K. Srinivasa Prasad as the Standing Counsel for APSRTC. APSRTC confirmed its intention to file a vakalath (power of attorney). The case was adjourned with administrative directions regarding counsel representation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Feb-2020
Final Hearing
J. Uma Devi
-
27-Jan-2020
Final Hearing
J. Uma Devi
-
31-Dec-2019
Final Hearing
J. Uma Devi
-
14-Dec-2019
For Reference To Lok Adalat
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
-
15-Feb-2016
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
03-Aug-2005
Case filed
Registration No. MACMA/2208/2006
MACMA/2208/2006 Summary: On 19.06.2026, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed the registry to update legal representation in the case, deleting K. Satyanarayan Murthy's name and substituting K. Srinivasa Prasad as the Standing Counsel for APSRTC. APSRTC confirmed its intention to file a vakalath (power of attorney). The case was adjourned with administrative directions regarding counsel representation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts