ASHA vs VINAYAKA — 6558/2023

Case under U/s 166 Mv Act Section MV ACT. Status: evidence. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.

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

CNR: KABC020308892023

evidence

Next Hearing

27th March 2026

Filing Number

6492/2023

Filing Date

05-10-2023

Registration No

6558/2023

Registration Date

05-10-2023

Court

CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU

Judge

39-SCCH - 18 - III ADDL. Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM

Acts & Sections

U/S 166 MV Act Section MV ACT

Petitioner(s)

ASHA

Adv. RADHAMMA M G

MANJUNATH R

KIRAN R

KAVERI

GALEMMA KORAMA

Respondent(s)

VINAYAKA

BAJAJ ALL GEN INS CO LTD

Hearing History

Judge: 39-SCCH - 18 - III ADDL. Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM

06-03-2026

evidence

25-02-2026

evidence

02-02-2026

evidence

09-01-2026

evidence

09-12-2025

evidence

Interim Orders

23-07-2024
Deposition
27-09-2024
Deposition
27-09-2024
Issues
06-03-2025
Deposition
01-04-2025
Deposition
03-07-2025
Deposition
01-08-2025
Deposition
29-10-2025
Deposition
25-02-2026
Deposition

Summary: In MVC No. 6558/2023 (dated 25-02-2026), the court rejected the party objection raised by the second respondent's counsel regarding the police information and witness testimony. The court found that the witness (PW-3) produced a certified copy of the police information marked as Exhibit 25, and dismissed allegations of false certification and perjury. The court also held that the first respondent's objection was unilateral and therefore inadmissible, with no further hearing scheduled. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: In MVC No. 6558/2023 (dated 25-02-2026), the court rejected the party objection raised by the second respondent's counsel regarding the police information and witness testimony. The court found that the witness (PW-3) produced a certified copy of the police information marked as Exhibit 25, and dismissed allegations of false certification and perjury. The court also held that the first respondent's objection was unilateral and therefore inadmissible, with no further hearing scheduled. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case