Rahul Shankarrao Solankar vs Kamlakar Digambarrao Jadhav And Another — 317/2025

Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section 166. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 20th June 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 20-Jun-2026 this date has passed

M.A.C.P. - Motor Accident Claim Petition

CNR: MHLA010055342025

e-Filing Number

12-12-2025

Filing Number

4089/2025

Filing Date

15-Dec-2025

Registration No

317/2025

Registration Date

17-Dec-2025

Court

District and Sessions Court , Latur

Judge

3-District Judge 2nd Latur

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act Section 166

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Rahul Shankarrao Solankar

    Adv. Patel Nazir G

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Kamlakar Digambarrao Jadhav And Another

  2. 2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager

Case History

  1. 20-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 23-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    District Judge 2nd Latur

  3. 07-Apr-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Case Summary: MACP No. 317/2025 The court allowed Respondent No. 2's application to set aside the ex-parte order dated 16/02/2026 passed against them. Finding the delay in appearance was unintentional and supported by affidavit, and considering hearing had not yet commenced, the court permitted Respondent No. 2 to contest the petition on merits. The order imposed costs of Rs. 500/- payable to the claimant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 07-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    District Judge 2nd Latur

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    IssuesView PDF

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    District Judge 2nd Latur

  7. 16-Feb-2026

    Issues

    District Judge 2nd Latur

  8. 27-Jan-2026

    Awaiting Notice

    District Judge 1st Latur

  9. 17-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 15-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 317/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MACP No. 317/2025 The court allowed Respondent No. 2's application to set aside the ex-parte order dated 16/02/2026 passed against them. Finding the delay in appearance was unintentional and supported by affidavit, and considering hearing had not yet commenced, the court permitted Respondent No. 2 to contest the petition on merits. The order imposed costs of Rs. 500/- payable to the claimant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case