ANIL RAMESH KUMAR SINGH vs MILIND TRAVELS AND ANR. Advocate - Leena Laxman Kavankar — FA/1911/2025
Case under Motor Vehicles Act,1939 Section 173. Next hearing: 07th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM010405992025
Next Hearing
07th May 2026
Filing Number
FA/25768/2025
Filing Date
25-07-2025
Registration No
FA/1911/2025
Registration Date
29-09-2025
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)
ANIL RAMESH KUMAR SINGH
Adv. T J Mendon
Respondent(s)
MILIND TRAVELS AND ANR. Advocate - Leena Laxman Kavankar
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Hearing History
Judge: Dr.M.S. Deshpande, Registrar (Judicial - II)
FOR ORDERS (OBJECTION NOT REMOVED)
FOR ORDERS (REGULAR)
FOR ORDERS (REGULAR)
FOR ORDERS (REGULAR)
FOR ORDERS (REGULAR)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-09-2025 | FOR ORDERS (OBJECTION NOT REMOVED) |
| 06-10-2025 | FOR ORDERS (REGULAR) |
| 07-05-2026 | FOR ORDERS (REGULAR) |
| 22-04-2026 | FOR ORDERS (REGULAR) |
| 27-01-2026 | FOR ORDERS (REGULAR) |
Orders
The High Court of Bombay's order in FA/1911/2025 (23/04/2026) found that notice to respondent No. 1 was not properly served—the bailiff's affixing of notice on the outer door was deemed ineffective service as the respondent was not present. The court directed the appellant's advocate to attempt proper service within two weeks as a final opportunity, warning that failure to serve the unserved respondent will result in dismissal of the First Appeal. Subsequently, respondent No. 1's counsel appeared and filed a Vakalatnama; appeal copies are to be provided after verification. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The High Court of Bombay's order in FA/1911/2025 (23/04/2026) found that notice to respondent No. 1 was not properly served—the bailiff's affixing of notice on the outer door was deemed ineffective service as the respondent was not present. The court directed the appellant's advocate to attempt proper service within two weeks as a final opportunity, warning that failure to serve the unserved respondent will result in dismissal of the First Appeal. Subsequently, respondent No. 1's counsel appeared and filed a Vakalatnama; appeal copies are to be provided after verification. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts