UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs USHADEVI YADAV Advocate - RAKESH KUMAR THAKUR, ,SHASHI BHUSAN TIWARI — MAC/482/2025
Next hearing: : -.
CNR: CGHC010075202025
Filing Number
MAC/4255/2025
Filing Date
19-Feb-2025
Registration No
MAC/482/2025
Registration Date
21-Feb-2025
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
COMPENSATION MATTERS ( 12 )
Sub-Category
MATTERS RELATING TO APPEALS FILED BY INSURANCE COMPANIES. ( 1205 )
Judicial Branch
Civil Section
Last updated 05-Jun-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Adv. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh
Respondent(s)
-
1.USHADEVI YADAV Advocate - RAKESH KUMAR THAKUR, ,SHASHI BHUSAN TIWARI
-
2.Ritesh Kumar yadav
-
3.Anshu Yadav
-
4.Saniya Yadav
-
5.Rajmuniya Devi
-
6.Prakshchand Jain
Adv. ishan verma,ADITYA KUMAR MISHRA
Case History
-
—
Next hearingPending
-
07-May-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar JaiswalView PDF
Case Summary: MAC No. 482/2025 High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (07/05/2026) The court allowed I.A. No.03/2025, condoning a 58-day delay in filing the cross-objection after finding the reasons satisfactory. The appellant was granted time to file an application to delete respondent No.5's name. The case, being an admitted appeal with trial court records already received, was adjourned for hearing after summer vacation, with interim relief (if any) continuing until the next hearing date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Nov-2025
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan PandeyView PDF
-
29-Aug-2025
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh RajputView PDF
-
25-Feb-2025
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan PandeyView PDF
-
25-Feb-2025
Fresh Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
-
19-Feb-2025
Case filed
Registration No. MAC/482/2025
Case Summary: MAC No. 482/2025 High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (07/05/2026) The court allowed I.A. No.03/2025, condoning a 58-day delay in filing the cross-objection after finding the reasons satisfactory. The appellant was granted time to file an application to delete respondent No.5's name. The case, being an admitted appeal with trial court records already received, was adjourned for hearing after summer vacation, with interim relief (if any) continuing until the next hearing date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts