NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs SMT. SAVITRI Advocate - ADITYA KHARE, ,PRAVEEN DHURANDHAR,N.S.DHURANDHAR — MAC/841/2020
Next hearing: : -.
CNR: CGHC010142682020
Filing Number
MAC/7273/2020
Filing Date
24-Jun-2020
Registration No
MAC/841/2020
Registration Date
27-Jun-2020
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
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.NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Adv. Qamrul Aziz,G.V.KUTUMBA RAO,G.V.KUTUMBA RAO, ,BADRUL AZIZ,G.V.KUTUMBA RAO
Respondent(s)
-
1.SMT. SAVITRI Advocate - ADITYA KHARE, ,PRAVEEN DHURANDHAR,N.S.DHURANDHAR
-
2.Sanjay Kumar
-
3.Sangeeta
-
4.Sharda
-
5.Pooja
-
6.Pushpa
-
7.Jamuna Bai
-
8.Goverdhan
-
9.Mohammad Ali
-
10.Vikash Tiwari
Case History
-
—
Next hearingPending
-
06-May-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. AgrawalView PDF
Case Summary: In MAC No. 841/2020, the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (dated 06/05/2026) adjourned the case for final hearing on an expeditious basis. The court ordered that fresh notice be issued to the respondent (Smt. Savitri) and directed that the pleadings and copies be filed within seven days. The appellant (National Insurance Company Limited) was represented, while the respondent remained absent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
30-Jun-2020
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay AgrawalView PDF
-
30-Jun-2020
Fresh Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal
-
24-Jun-2020
Case filed
Registration No. MAC/841/2020
Case Summary: In MAC No. 841/2020, the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (dated 06/05/2026) adjourned the case for final hearing on an expeditious basis. The court ordered that fresh notice be issued to the respondent (Smt. Savitri) and directed that the pleadings and copies be filed within seven days. The appellant (National Insurance Company Limited) was represented, while the respondent remained absent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts