SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THR. MR. SATPALSINGH RAJPUT vs MR. ANTONY VARGHESE MENACHERY THR.AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE / POA MR. GEORGE JOSEPH AND ORS. — CAF/3315/2016
Case under Motor Vehicles Act,1939 Section 173. Next hearing: 02nd July 2026.
CNR: HCBM010289892016
Next Hearing
02nd July 2026
Filing Number
CAF/19323/2016
Filing Date
13-07-2016
Registration No
CAF/3315/2016
Registration Date
20-07-2016
Judge
Dr.M.S. Deshpande, Registrar (Judicial - II)
Coram
Dr.M.S. Deshpande, Registrar (Judicial - II)
Bench Type
Single
Category
FIRST APPEAL ( 53 )
Sub-Category
MACP - Single Bench ( 4 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THR. MR. SATPALSINGH RAJPUT
Adv. KMC LEGAL VENTURE
Respondent(s)
MR. ANTONY VARGHESE MENACHERY THR.AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE / POA MR. GEORGE JOSEPH AND ORS.
Adv. (VP FILED IN FAST) 1123
MISS DIVYA ANTONY MENACHERY (MINOR) THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE /P.O.A MR. GEORGE JOSEPH
MAS. DASMOND ANTONY MENACHERY (MINOR) THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE /P.O.A MR. GEORGE JOSEPH
SHRI. BHJIMRAI B. PATIL
MISS. DEEPTI ANTONY MENACHERY
Hearing History
Judge: Dr.M.S. Deshpande, Registrar (Judicial - II)
FOR CIRCULATION[CIVIL SIDE]
FOR ORDERS (REGULAR)
FOR ORDERS
FOR ORDERS
FOR ORDERS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-07-2016 | FOR CIRCULATION[CIVIL SIDE] |
| 02-07-2026 | FOR ORDERS (REGULAR) |
| 25-02-2019 | FOR ORDERS |
| 23-02-2018 | FOR ORDERS |
| 07-11-2017 | FOR ORDERS |
Orders
Case Summary: In Civil Application No. 3315/2016 before the Bombay High Court, the case was adjourned for service of notice on respondents. The notice to Respondent No. 4 was returned for want of extension of time and was re-issued returnable in 10 weeks. The notice to Respondent No. 5 remained unserved; the applicant's advocate was given a final two-week opportunity to serve notice, with dismissal of the application threatened upon failure. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: In Civil Application No. 3315/2016 before the Bombay High Court, the case was adjourned for service of notice on respondents. The notice to Respondent No. 4 was returned for want of extension of time and was re-issued returnable in 10 weeks. The notice to Respondent No. 5 remained unserved; the applicant's advocate was given a final two-week opportunity to serve notice, with dismissal of the application threatened upon failure. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts