Siddharth Shivram Ingle vs Shankar Trimbak Ambhore — 105/2025
Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section section166. Status: Awaiting Notice. Next hearing: 07th April 2026.
M.A.C.P.
CNR: MHAK010021622025
e-Filing Number
21-06-2025
Filing Number
1254/2025
Filing Date
21-Jun-2025
Registration No
105/2025
Registration Date
24-Jun-2025
Court
District and Session Court , Akola
Judge
2-District Judge -I Akola
Last updated 25-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Siddharth Shivram Ingle
Adv. Rajratna Bhaskar Ghongade
-
2.Navinkumar Shivram Ingle
Adv. Rajratna Bhaskar Ghongade
-
3.Vikaskumar Shivram Ingle
Adv. Rajratna Bhaskar Ghongade
Respondent(s)
-
1.Shankar Trimbak Ambhore
-
2.Tata Motors Limited Telco
-
3.The New India Assurance Company Ltd, Through its Divisional Manager
Case History
-
07-Apr-2026
Next hearingPending
-
12-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
Summary: The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola allowed Opposite Party No. 3's application to file a written statement beyond the prescribed limitation period. The tribunal condoned the delay (which occurred because the legal officer was out of station) and admitted the written statement on record, reasoning that both parties should have an opportunity to be heard and the insurer should be able to contest the claim with technical defences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
12-Mar-2026
Awaiting Notice
District Judge -I Akola
-
06-Mar-2026
Hearing
District Judge -I Akola
-
04-Feb-2026
Awaiting Notice
District Judge -I Akola
-
17-Dec-2025
Awaiting Notice
District Judge -I Akola
-
03-Nov-2025
Awaiting Notice
District Judge -I Akola
-
18-Oct-2025
Awaiting Notice
District Judge -I Akola
-
30-Sep-2025
Awaiting Notice
District Judge -I Akola
-
27-Jun-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
21-Jun-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 105/2025
Summary: The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola allowed Opposite Party No. 3's application to file a written statement beyond the prescribed limitation period. The tribunal condoned the delay (which occurred because the legal officer was out of station) and admitted the written statement on record, reasoning that both parties should have an opportunity to be heard and the insurer should be able to contest the claim with technical defences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts