MALLIKARJUN M vs SONAL ENGINEERING — 723/2025

Case under U/s 166 Mv Act Section MV ACT. Status: evidence. Next hearing: 20th June 2026.

evidence Next hearing 20-Jun-2026 this date has passed

M.V.C. - ACCIDENT CLAIM CASES UNDER MOTOR VEHICLES ACT

CNR: KABC020049982025

Filing Number

735/2025

Filing Date

29-Jan-2025

Registration No

723/2025

Registration Date

30-Jan-2025

Court

CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU

Judge

37-Scch - 11 - I Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

U/s 166 Mv Act Section MV ACT

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MALLIKARJUN M

    Adv. MOHAN KUMAR H.G

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SONAL ENGINEERING

  2. 2.UNIVERSAL SAMPO GEN INS CO LTD

Case History

  1. 20-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 26-May-2026

    evidence

    Scch - 11 - I Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm

  3. 28-Apr-2026

    evidence

    Scch - 11 - I Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm

  4. 16-Apr-2026

    DepositionView PDF

    Case Summary: 723/2025 Petitioner: Mallikarjun M Respondents: Sonal Engineering and Universal Sampo Gen Ins Co Ltd The case was adjourned to 16.04.2026. The petitioner gave oral arguments denying liability in a motor vehicle accident matter, claiming he was not at fault and that the second respondent should not be compelled to pay compensation. The first respondent's counsel indicated no cross-examination was required. The court adjourned the matter for further proceedings on the scheduled date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  5. 16-Apr-2026

    evidence

    Scch - 11 - I Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm

  6. 01-Apr-2026

    evidence

    Scch - 11 - I Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm

  7. 14-Mar-2026

    evidence

    Scch - 11 - I Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm

  8. 07-Mar-2026

    evidence

    Scch - 11 - I Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm

  9. 21-Feb-2026

    evidence

    Scch - 11 - I Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm

  10. 06-Feb-2026

    evidence

    Scch - 11 - I Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm

  11. 20-Jan-2026

    evidence

    Scch - 11 - I Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm

  12. 07-Jan-2026

    evidence

    Scch - 11 - I Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm

  13. 09-Dec-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  14. 09-Dec-2025

    evidence

    Scch - 11 - I Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm

  15. 28-Nov-2025

    evidence

    Scch - 11 - I Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm

  16. 10-Nov-2025

    evidence

    Scch - 11 - I Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm

  17. 24-Oct-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  18. 24-Oct-2025

    evidence

    Scch - 11 - I Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm

  19. 03-Oct-2025

    evidence

    Scch - 11 - I Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm

  20. 11-Sep-2025

    evidence

    Scch - 11 - I Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm

  21. 14-Aug-2025

    evidence

    Scch - 11 - I Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm

  22. 22-Jul-2025

    evidence

    Scch - 11 - I Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm

  23. 30-Jun-2025

    IssuesView PDF

  24. 30-Jun-2025

    evidence

    Scch - 11 - I Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm

  25. 11-Jun-2025

    Summons

    Scch - 11 - I Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm

  26. 28-Apr-2025

    Summons

    Scch - 11 - I Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm

  27. 26-Mar-2025

    Summons

    Scch - 11 - I Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm

  28. 31-Jan-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  29. 29-Jan-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 723/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 723/2025 Petitioner: Mallikarjun M Respondents: Sonal Engineering and Universal Sampo Gen Ins Co Ltd The case was adjourned to 16.04.2026. The petitioner gave oral arguments denying liability in a motor vehicle accident matter, claiming he was not at fault and that the second respondent should not be compelled to pay compensation. The first respondent's counsel indicated no cross-examination was required. The court adjourned the matter for further proceedings on the scheduled date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case