TRISHALABEN JITENDRABHAI SHAH vs ARSH ASIFBHAI FATANI Advocate - J C ABHANI — 77/2023

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166. Disposed: Uncontested--LOK ADALAT on 18th April 2026.

Case disposed

MACP - MAC PETITION

CNR: GJBN010012412023

Filing Number

77/2023

Filing Date

23-Mar-2023

Registration No

77/2023

Registration Date

23-Mar-2023

Court

DISTICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BHAVNAGAR

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Decision Date

18-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--LOK ADALAT

Last updated 31-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.TRISHALABEN JITENDRABHAI SHAH

    Adv. C S KALATHIYA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ARSH ASIFBHAI FATANI Advocate - J C ABHANI

  2. 2.MOHAMMEDASIFBHAI ABDULGANI FATANI

    Adv. J C ABHANI

  3. 3.HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPAY

    Adv. N H JHALA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Apr-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court dismissed the petition as the parties had already reached a settlement outside court (Annex 32). The court ordered refund of court fees in the petitioner's name and rejected any cost award, as no further court proceedings were necessary given the agreed settlement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge

  4. 04-Apr-2026

    Applicants Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  5. 25-Mar-2026

    Applicants Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    Applicants Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  7. 16-Feb-2026

    Applicants Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  8. 15-Jan-2026

    Applicants Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  9. 29-Dec-2025

    Applicants Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  10. 03-Dec-2025

    Applicants Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  11. 13-Nov-2025

    Applicants Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  12. 25-Sep-2025

    Applicants Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  13. 20-Aug-2025

    Documentary Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  14. 23-Jul-2025

    Documentary Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  15. 12-Jun-2025

    Written Statement/Reply

    5th Addl District Judge

  16. 08-May-2025

    Written Statement/Reply

    6th Addl District Judge

  17. 27-Mar-2025

    Written Statement/Reply

    2nd Addl District Judge

  18. 06-Feb-2025

    Written Statement/Reply

    2nd Addl District Judge

  19. 26-Dec-2024

    Written Statement/Reply

    2nd Addl District Judge

  20. 28-Nov-2024

    Written Statement/Reply

    2nd Addl District Judge

  21. 24-Oct-2024

    Written Statement/Reply

    2nd Addl District Judge

  22. 12-Sep-2024

    Written Statement/Reply

    3rd Addl District Judge

  23. 01-Aug-2024

    Written Statement/Reply

    3rd Addl District Judge

  24. 20-Jun-2024

    Written Statement/Reply

    3rd Addl District Judge

  25. 25-Apr-2024

    Written Statement/Reply

    3rd Addl District Judge

  26. 22-Feb-2024

    Written Statement/Reply

    3rd Addl District Judge

  27. 18-Jan-2024

    Written Statement/Reply

    3rd Addl District Judge

  28. 07-Dec-2023

    Written Statement/Reply

    3rd Addl District Judge

  29. 09-Nov-2023

    Written Statement/Reply

    4th Addl District Judge

  30. 19-Oct-2023

    Written Statement/Reply

    4th Addl District Judge

  31. 05-Oct-2023

    Written Statement/Reply

    4th Addl District Judge

  32. 17-Aug-2023

    Written Statement/Reply

    4th Addl District Judge

  33. 13-Jul-2023

    Summons - Notice

    4th Addl District Judge

  34. 12-Jun-2023

    Summons - Notice

    4th Addl District Judge

  35. 24-Apr-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  36. 23-Mar-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 77/2023

casestatus.in Summary

The court dismissed the petition as the parties had already reached a settlement outside court (Annex 32). The court ordered refund of court fees in the petitioner's name and rejected any cost award, as no further court proceedings were necessary given the agreed settlement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case