Pankaj Sukhadeo Sonwane vs Sagar Rajaram Kandekar Advocate - Pawar D.P. — 2/2021
Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section 166. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.
M.A.C.P. - Motor Accident Claim Petition
CNR: MHAU040001052021
Next Hearing
16th June 2026
Filing Number
48/2021
Filing Date
27-01-2021
Registration No
2/2021
Registration Date
27-01-2021
Court
District and Additional Sessions Court, Vaijapur
Judge
3-DIST. JUDGE-1 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, VAIJAPUR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Pankaj Sukhadeo Sonwane
Adv. Borade N.R.
Dipali Pankaj Sonwane
Respondent(s)
Sagar Rajaram Kandekar Advocate - Pawar D.P.
Appasaheb Walmik Patole
Adv. Tribhuvanpatil P.U.
Gorakh Sakharam Shingare
Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Adv. Khawle M.S.
Hearing History
Judge: 3-DIST. JUDGE-1 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, VAIJAPUR
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 09-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 04-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 02-04-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: MACP No. 2/2021 The court allowed the claimant's application to set aside the evidence-closed order and granted permission to lead further evidence, subject to the condition that the claimant takes appropriate steps in the proceedings. The judge noted the claimant cited ill-health for missing the previous hearing and, considering the beneficial nature of the legislation and that strict CPC procedures are not applicable, granted one last opportunity to adduce evidence, with a warning that failure to take appropriate steps will result in closure of the claimant's evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: MACP No. 2/2021 The court allowed the claimant's application to set aside the evidence-closed order and granted permission to lead further evidence, subject to the condition that the claimant takes appropriate steps in the proceedings. The judge noted the claimant cited ill-health for missing the previous hearing and, considering the beneficial nature of the legislation and that strict CPC procedures are not applicable, granted one last opportunity to adduce evidence, with a warning that failure to take appropriate steps will result in closure of the claimant's evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts