RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THR. BRANCH MANAGER, NAGPUR vs KAVITA PRAVIN SHAMBHARKAR AND OTHERS — CAF/976/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 41RULE05. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 24-Feb-2026

CNR: HCBM040029232026

Filing Number

CAF/2103/2026

Filing Date

28-Jan-2026

Registration No

CAF/976/2026

Registration Date

12-Feb-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Yanshivraj Gopichand Khobragade

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Yanshivraj Gopichand Khobragade

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 41RULE05

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THR. BRANCH MANAGER, NAGPUR

    Adv. AMIT M. KUKDAY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KAVITA PRAVIN SHAMBHARKAR AND OTHERS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Yanshivraj Gopichand KhobragadeView PDF

    Case Summary: CAF 976/2026 The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) decided that Reliance General Insurance Company's deposit of the full compensation amount would keep the stay on payment operative during the appeal's pendency. The claimants (Kavita Pravin Shambharkar and others) were permitted partial withdrawal: 50% with undertaking and 25% with surety, balancing the claimants' financial needs against the insurer's recovery risks if the award is modified on appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Feb-2026

    —

  4. 28-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CAF/976/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CAF 976/2026 The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) decided that Reliance General Insurance Company's deposit of the full compensation amount would keep the stay on payment operative during the appeal's pendency. The claimants (Kavita Pravin Shambharkar and others) were permitted partial withdrawal: 50% with undertaking and 25% with surety, balancing the claimants' financial needs against the insurer's recovery risks if the award is modified on appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case