Ganesh Tavareappa Lamani @ Chaavan vs S.P.R. Transport its propritor Saayyed Husen Peer Khadri Advocate - MAHANTESH H.HOSUR — 51/2023
Case under U Sec 166 of M V Act. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.
CNR: KABK300000812023
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
Filing Number
51/2023
Filing Date
02-02-2023
Registration No
51/2023
Registration Date
04-02-2023
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HUNGUND
Judge
1024-SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUNGUND
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ganesh Tavareappa Lamani @ Chaavan
Adv. N.L. Tahasildar
Respondent(s)
S.P.R. Transport its propritor Saayyed Husen Peer Khadri Advocate - MAHANTESH H.HOSUR
The Regionla Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd
Adv. MAHANTESH H.HOSUR
Hearing History
Judge: 1024-SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUNGUND
EVIDENCE
ORDERS
OBJECTION
OBJECTION
OBJECTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 13-02-2026 | ORDERS |
| 23-01-2026 | OBJECTION |
| 26-12-2025 | OBJECTION |
| 05-12-2025 | OBJECTION |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court allowed I.A. No. VIII filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, condoning a 60-day delay in filing the motor accident claim petition (MVC 51/2023). The petitioner had sustained injuries from an accident on 02/06/2022 and filed the claim on 02/02/2023; the court found the delay justified due to bonafide reasons and applied a pragmatic approach to delay condonation. Consequently, I.A. No. VII filed by respondent no.2 seeking dismissal on limitation grounds was rejected as it no longer survived after the delay was condoned. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court allowed I.A. No. VIII filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, condoning a 60-day delay in filing the motor accident claim petition (MVC 51/2023). The petitioner had sustained injuries from an accident on 02/06/2022 and filed the claim on 02/02/2023; the court found the delay justified due to bonafide reasons and applied a pragmatic approach to delay condonation. Consequently, I.A. No. VII filed by respondent no.2 seeking dismissal on limitation grounds was rejected as it no longer survived after the delay was condoned. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts