DEEPAK KUMAR GAJBHIYE vs CHINDAR SINGH Advocate - p.chetan kumar, ,kiran singh,P. RAVINDER BABU,Pramod Ramteke,Jyoti Singh — MAC/1018/2025

Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: CGHC010134782025

Filing Number

MAC/7533/2025

Filing Date

03-Apr-2025

Registration No

MAC/1018/2025

Registration Date

06-May-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

DRIVER / OWNERS LIABILITY MATTERS. ( 1203 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DEEPAK KUMAR GAJBHIYE

    Adv. PUNIT RUPAREL,KALPESH RUPAREL,KALPESH RUPAREL, ,KALPESH RUPAREL

  2. 2.KISHOR KUMAR GAJBHIYE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.CHINDAR SINGH Advocate - p.chetan kumar, ,kiran singh,P. RAVINDER BABU,Pramod Ramteke,Jyoti Singh

  2. 2.SMT. GURMEET KAUR

  3. 3.SINGARA SINGH

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 08-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar JaiswalView PDF

    Case Summary: In MAC No. 1018/2025 before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, the case between Deepak Kumar Gajbhiye (appellant) and Chindar Singh (respondent) was heard on 08/05/2026. The court received a report that Respondent No. 3 has expired. The case was adjourned and listed for hearing just after the summer vacation to allow the appellants' counsel to take necessary steps regarding the death of the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-May-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan PandeyView PDF

  4. 08-May-2025

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

  5. 03-Apr-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. MAC/1018/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: In MAC No. 1018/2025 before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, the case between Deepak Kumar Gajbhiye (appellant) and Chindar Singh (respondent) was heard on 08/05/2026. The court received a report that Respondent No. 3 has expired. The case was adjourned and listed for hearing just after the summer vacation to allow the appellants' counsel to take necessary steps regarding the death of the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case