Drxayani W/o Shivapp Pattanshetti vs Ranjit Singh S/o Bahadar Singh Advocate - I.S.YANDIGERI — 91/2020
Case under U Sec 166 of M V Act 1998. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 17th April 2026.
M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.
CNR: KABK300001382020
Next Hearing
17th April 2026
Filing Number
91/2020
Filing Date
02-03-2020
Registration No
91/2020
Registration Date
02-03-2020
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HUNGUND
Judge
1024-SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUNGUND
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Drxayani W/o Shivapp Pattanshetti
Adv. M.S.Desai
Shivappa S/o Channasangappa Pattanashetti
Adv. R.S.G
Respondent(s)
Ranjit Singh S/o Bahadar Singh Advocate - I.S.YANDIGERI
Divisionl Manger Bajaj Aallianz Genera Insurance Company Ltd
Adv. R.S.Y
Hearing History
Judge: 1024-SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUNGUND
EVIDENCE
ORDER
HEARING
HEARING
OBJECTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 13-02-2026 | ORDER |
| 06-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 19-12-2025 | HEARING |
| 21-11-2025 | OBJECTION |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court rejected Interim Application No. VII filed by respondent no. 2 (insurance company), which sought to issue a notice to the investigating officer to produce the insurance policy certificate for the offending vehicle. The court held that under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the insurance company itself bears the burden of proving whether an insurance contract existed at the time of the accident, not the investigating officer. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with no order as to costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court rejected Interim Application No. VII filed by respondent no. 2 (insurance company), which sought to issue a notice to the investigating officer to produce the insurance policy certificate for the offending vehicle. The court held that under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the insurance company itself bears the burden of proving whether an insurance contract existed at the time of the accident, not the investigating officer. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with no order as to costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts