Smt. Shivamma. vs Sri. Shankar H.G. — 475/2023
Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section 166. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.
CNR: KACM020025442023
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
Filing Number
480/2023
Filing Date
21-11-2023
Registration No
475/2023
Registration Date
21-11-2023
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHIKKAMAGALURU
Judge
215-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Smt. Shivamma.
Adv. B.S. YOGEESH
Sri. Santhosh S.
Sri. Vijay Kumar S.
Sri. Shridhar K.S.
Respondent(s)
Sri. Shankar H.G.
Sri. Ramanna.
The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Chikkamagaluru.
Hearing History
Judge: 215-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 06-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 24-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 26-12-2025 | EVIDENCE |
| 05-12-2025 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
In this Motor Vehicle Case (MVC No. 475/2023) from the Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court in Chikmagalur, the court clarified vehicle ownership and registration (RC) transfer procedures dated 06.02.2026. The court ruled that the person whose name appears in the RC is the vehicle's legal owner, and that RC transfers should only occur after proper notification to the original owner and submission of required documents to the registration office with applicable fees. The first respondent's counsel failed to appear, and no further hearing was required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
In this Motor Vehicle Case (MVC No. 475/2023) from the Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court in Chikmagalur, the court clarified vehicle ownership and registration (RC) transfer procedures dated 06.02.2026. The court ruled that the person whose name appears in the RC is the vehicle's legal owner, and that RC transfers should only occur after proper notification to the original owner and submission of required documents to the registration office with applicable fees. The first respondent's counsel failed to appear, and no further hearing was required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts