Kuldeep Vijaykumar Joshi vs Kamlakar Digambarrao Jadhav And Another — 318/2025
Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section 166. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 20th June 2026.
M.A.C.P. - Motor Accident Claim Petition
CNR: MHLA010055352025
e-Filing Number
12-12-2025
Filing Number
4090/2025
Filing Date
15-Dec-2025
Registration No
318/2025
Registration Date
17-Dec-2025
Court
District and Sessions Court , Latur
Judge
3-District Judge 2nd Latur
Last updated 04-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Kuldeep Vijaykumar Joshi
Adv. Patel Nazir G
Respondent(s)
-
1.Kamlakar Digambarrao Jadhav And Another
-
2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager
Case History
-
20-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
23-Apr-2026
Evidence
District Judge 2nd Latur
-
07-Apr-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
Case 318/2025 Summary: The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) at Latur allowed Respondent No. 2's application to set aside an ex-parte order dated 16.02.2026 passed against them. The court found that while Respondent No. 2 was duly served and given sufficient opportunity, their delayed appearance was unintentional due to lack of instructions from their client, and since the hearing had not yet commenced, setting aside the order would allow proper adjudication on merits. Respondent No. 2 was ordered to pay Rs. 500 costs to the claimant by the next date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
07-Apr-2026
Evidence
District Judge 2nd Latur
-
13-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
13-Mar-2026
Evidence
District Judge 2nd Latur
-
16-Feb-2026
Issues
District Judge 2nd Latur
-
27-Jan-2026
Appearance
District Judge 1st Latur
-
17-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
15-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 318/2025
Case 318/2025 Summary: The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) at Latur allowed Respondent No. 2's application to set aside an ex-parte order dated 16.02.2026 passed against them. The court found that while Respondent No. 2 was duly served and given sufficient opportunity, their delayed appearance was unintentional due to lack of instructions from their client, and since the hearing had not yet commenced, setting aside the order would allow proper adjudication on merits. Respondent No. 2 was ordered to pay Rs. 500 costs to the claimant by the next date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts