Punjaram Vishwnath Kharat vs Dnyaneshwar Suresh Dhakane — 4/2024
Case under Limitation Act Section 5. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 31st March 2026.
MACP. M.A.
CNR: MHBU010005292024
e-Filing Number
25-04-2024
Filing Number
276/2024
Filing Date
25-04-2024
Registration No
4/2024
Registration Date
25-04-2024
Court
District and Session Court Buldhana
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Buldana
Decision Date
31st March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Punjaram Vishwnath Kharat
Adv. Ingle ST
Yashoda Vishwanath Kharat
Adv. INGLE SANJAY TUKARAM
Sagar Vishwanath Kharat
Adv. INGLE SANJAY TUKARAM
Kalpana Siddharth Pandagale
Adv. INGLE SANJAY TUKARAM
Respondent(s)
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Dhakane
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Buldana
Disposed
Order on Exh
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 31-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 24-03-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 11-03-2026 | Reply/Say |
| 04-03-2026 | Reply/Say |
| 25-02-2026 | Reply/Say |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay application and ordered registration of the claim petition for compensation arising from a fatal vehicular accident dated 27.01.2023, filed nine months beyond the six-month statutory limitation period. The court held that since motor accident compensation is social legislation and the police officer had a mandatory duty to forward accident details to the tribunal (which appears not to have been done), the petitioners should not be denied relief solely on grounds of delay; the limitation issue was kept open for further adjudication as it was pending before the Supreme Court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay application and ordered registration of the claim petition for compensation arising from a fatal vehicular accident dated 27.01.2023, filed nine months beyond the six-month statutory limitation period. The court held that since motor accident compensation is social legislation and the police officer had a mandatory duty to forward accident details to the tribunal (which appears not to have been done), the petitioners should not be denied relief solely on grounds of delay; the limitation issue was kept open for further adjudication as it was pending before the Supreme Court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts