KAVITA W/O SHANKAR ALAT AND OTHERS SAVANT VILAS PRALHADRAO vs Secretary Maharashtra State Road Transport Company Ltd Government of Maharashtra — CA/2583/2026
Case under Motor Vehicles Act 1939 & 1988 Section 166. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.
CNR: HCBM030085422026
Next Hearing
10th June 2026
e-Filing Number
18-02-2026
Filing Number
CA/6349/2026
Filing Date
26-02-2026
Registration No
CA/2583/2026
Registration Date
05-03-2026
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY A. DESHMUKH
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY A. DESHMUKH
Bench Type
Single
Judicial Branch
Civil
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KAVITA W/O SHANKAR ALAT AND OTHERS SAVANT VILAS PRALHADRAO
Mahesh Shankar Alat
Adv. SAVANT VILAS PRALHADRAO
Prashant Shankar Alat
Adv. SAVANT VILAS PRALHADRAO
Respondent(s)
Secretary Maharashtra State Road Transport Company Ltd Government of Maharashtra
Namdeo Pundlik Jadhav
M/s Jai Agency Prop A L Borele
The General Manager Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co Ltd Through its Branch Manager
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY A. DESHMUKH
FOR ORDERS
FOR ORDERS
FOR ORDERS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-06-2026 | FOR ORDERS |
| 17-04-2026 | FOR ORDERS |
| 26-03-2026 | FOR ORDERS |
Orders
Case Summary: CA/2583/2026 In Civil Application No. 2583 of 2026, the High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) directed the appellant (Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd) to deposit the remaining 50% of a disputed amount before 10th June, 2026. The Court clarified that failure to deposit the amount within this deadline would result in automatic vacation of the stay order without further notice. The case was partly adjourned to allow proper service of notice on Respondent No.6. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CA/2583/2026 In Civil Application No. 2583 of 2026, the High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) directed the appellant (Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd) to deposit the remaining 50% of a disputed amount before 10th June, 2026. The Court clarified that failure to deposit the amount within this deadline would result in automatic vacation of the stay order without further notice. The case was partly adjourned to allow proper service of notice on Respondent No.6. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts