Shamim Begum wo Mohammad Gous HAMZAKHAN ISMAILKHAN PATHAN vs Cholamandalam MS General Insurance co Ltd — CA/5356/2026

Case under Motor Vehicles Act 1939 & 1988 Section 166. Disposed: Contested--Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute on 05th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM030169862026

e-Filing Number

21-04-2026

Filing Number

CA/12626/2026

Filing Date

27-Apr-2026

Registration No

CA/5356/2026

Registration Date

04-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

05-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act 1939 & 1988 Section 166

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Shamim Begum wo Mohammad Gous HAMZAKHAN ISMAILKHAN PATHAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Cholamandalam MS General Insurance co Ltd

  2. 2.Mohammad Sami Abdul Latif

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay A. DeshmukhView PDF

    The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad allowed Shamim Begum's application to condone a 147-day delay in filing the first appeal against Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co Ltd and granted stay on the impugned judgment's execution. The court permitted withdrawal of only 50% of the deposited amount with accrued interest, keeping the remaining 50% in fixed deposit until appeal disposal, citing doubts about vehicle involvement and the substantial compensation awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-May-2026

    Urgent Orders (Civil)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh

  4. 27-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CA/5356/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad allowed Shamim Begum's application to condone a 147-day delay in filing the first appeal against Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co Ltd and granted stay on the impugned judgment's execution. The court permitted withdrawal of only 50% of the deposited amount with accrued interest, keeping the remaining 50% in fixed deposit until appeal disposal, citing doubts about vehicle involvement and the substantial compensation awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case