Jyotsna Dattatraya Pawar vs Nandu Jibhau Sonawane Advocate - Kachole Satish B. — 279/2021
Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section 166. Status: Recasting of Issues. Next hearing: 05th May 2026.
M.A.C.P. - Motor Accident Claim Petition
CNR: MHNS010017282021
Next Hearing
05th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
882/2021
Filing Date
08-03-2021
Registration No
279/2021
Registration Date
16-03-2021
Court
District and Sessions Court , Nashik
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jyotsna Dattatraya Pawar
Adv. Sayyed Mohd Tayyab Q.
Sanvi Dattatraya Pawar
Respondent(s)
Nandu Jibhau Sonawane Advocate - Kachole Satish B.
Manisha Sambhaji Chavan
The Divisional Officer The New India Asurance Co Ltd
Appa Rambhau Pawar
Sakhubai Appa Pawar
Poonam Appa Pawar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK
Recasting of Issues
Recasting of Issues
Recasting of Issues
Recasting of Issues
Depositing Amount
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Recasting of Issues | |
| 20-03-2026 | Recasting of Issues | |
| 10-03-2026 | Recasting of Issues | |
| 02-03-2026 | Recasting of Issues | |
| 23-02-2026 | Depositing Amount |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Nashik) allowed the application (M.A.C.P. No.279/2021) filed by petitioners Smt. Jyotsna Dattatray Pawar and another on 04/07/2024. The owner and insurance company of Alto car bearing No.MH-10/CA-9355 were added as respondent Nos.7 and 8 to the petition, as their presence was found necessary for complete and effectual adjudication of the motor accident dispute. The petitioners were directed to comply with the necessary procedural requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Nashik) allowed the application (M.A.C.P. No.279/2021) filed by petitioners Smt. Jyotsna Dattatray Pawar and another on 04/07/2024. The owner and insurance company of Alto car bearing No.MH-10/CA-9355 were added as respondent Nos.7 and 8 to the petition, as their presence was found necessary for complete and effectual adjudication of the motor accident dispute. The petitioners were directed to comply with the necessary procedural requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts