Gajanan Bolo Gowda vs Annappa Hanumanth Naikk — 28/2023
Case under Prohibition of Child Marriage Act Section 166. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.
CNR: KAUK320000452023
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
19/2023
Filing Date
03-01-2023
Registration No
28/2023
Registration Date
13-01-2023
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHATKAL
Judge
1229-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, BHATKAL
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Gajanan Bolo Gowda
Adv. G.M.Moger
Respondent(s)
Annappa Hanumanth Naikk
The HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Hearing History
Judge: 1229-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, BHATKAL
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
Amendment
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 06-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 27-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 13-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 06-02-2026 | Amendment |
Interim Orders
Summary: In this medical negligence case (MVC No. 28/2023) heard by the Additional MSCT and Senior Civil Judge, Bhatkal on 06-03-2026, a medical expert witness (orthopedic surgeon) testified regarding the petitioner's injuries from a vehicle accident on 06-05-2022. The witness was cross-examined by the opposing counsel, who challenged the disability certificate (marked as NIP-11), alleging the doctor issued a false medical report without proper X-ray reports and without following government guidelines for calculating disability percentage. The court admitted the witness testimony and evidence into the record, and no cross-examination was conducted by the first respondent's counsel due to their absence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In this medical negligence case (MVC No. 28/2023) heard by the Additional MSCT and Senior Civil Judge, Bhatkal on 06-03-2026, a medical expert witness (orthopedic surgeon) testified regarding the petitioner's injuries from a vehicle accident on 06-05-2022. The witness was cross-examined by the opposing counsel, who challenged the disability certificate (marked as NIP-11), alleging the doctor issued a false medical report without proper X-ray reports and without following government guidelines for calculating disability percentage. The court admitted the witness testimony and evidence into the record, and no cross-examination was conducted by the first respondent's counsel due to their absence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts