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
Next Hearing
20th June 2026
e-Filing Number
12-12-2025
Filing Number
4090/2025
Filing Date
15-12-2025
Registration No
318/2025
Registration Date
17-12-2025
Court
District and Sessions Court , Latur
Judge
3-District Judge 2nd Latur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kuldeep Vijaykumar Joshi
Adv. Patel Nazir G
Respondent(s)
Kamlakar Digambarrao Jadhav And Another
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District Judge 2nd Latur
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Issues
Appearance
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 07-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-02-2026 | Issues |
| 27-01-2026 | Appearance |
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts