INAYATH ULLA SHARIEF vs RAMESH T — 2540/2025
Case under U/s 166 Mv Act Section MV ACT. Status: evidence. Next hearing: 08th April 2026.
M.V.C. - ACCIDENT CLAIM CASES UNDER MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
CNR: KABC020148232025
Next Hearing
08th April 2026
Filing Number
2543/2025
Filing Date
16-04-2025
Registration No
2540/2025
Registration Date
16-04-2025
Court
CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU
Judge
35-SCCH -01 - CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
INAYATH ULLA SHARIEF
Adv. K.G BHAT
Respondent(s)
RAMESH T
UNITED INDIA INS CO LTD
Hearing History
Judge: 35-SCCH -01 - CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
evidence
evidence
evidence
evidence
evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | evidence |
| 06-03-2026 | evidence |
| 13-02-2026 | evidence |
| 29-01-2026 | evidence |
| 13-01-2026 | evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: In MVC No. 2540 of 2025, witness PW2 testified on 13.03.2026 before the Small Causes Court in Bengaluru. The witness submitted an affidavit, hospital records from Bhagavan Mahaveer Jain Hospital (including Medico Legal Case Register and police intimation documents dated 13.12.2024 relating to one Inayath Ulla Shariff), patient files, and outpatient records, which were marked as exhibits NP23-NP27. The opposing counsel challenged the authenticity of the documents, alleging they were fabricated. The case was adjourned with no cross-examination from the first opposing party due to their absence in court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In MVC No. 2540 of 2025, witness PW2 testified on 13.03.2026 before the Small Causes Court in Bengaluru. The witness submitted an affidavit, hospital records from Bhagavan Mahaveer Jain Hospital (including Medico Legal Case Register and police intimation documents dated 13.12.2024 relating to one Inayath Ulla Shariff), patient files, and outpatient records, which were marked as exhibits NP23-NP27. The opposing counsel challenged the authenticity of the documents, alleging they were fabricated. The case was adjourned with no cross-examination from the first opposing party due to their absence in court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts