Harni vs Thiyagarajan Advocate - Thiru. S.J.Sheik Ibrahim — 7/2024
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 141,163A,163B,166,24(3). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.
MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition
CNR: TNRM010070732023
Next Hearing
19th June 2026
e-Filing Number
27-12-2023
Filing Number
895/2023
Filing Date
28-12-2023
Registration No
7/2024
Registration Date
05-01-2024
Court
Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Harni
Adv. Muthuraman R.A
Respondent(s)
Thiyagarajan Advocate - Thiru. S.J.Sheik Ibrahim
Shanthi
Adv. Thiru. S.J.Sheik Ibrahim
Babhu
Adv. Thiru. K. Muralikrishnan
The Manager, Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd
Adv. A.Tharma Rajan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Judge
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Enquiry
Enquiry
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 09-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 03-03-2026 | Enquiry |
| 27-02-2026 | Enquiry |
Interim Orders
Summary In this Tamil Nadu District Court order (M.C.O.P. 7/2024) dated 12.03.2026 from Ramanathapuram, the plaintiff's cross-examination of defendants was recorded. The court examined contested claims regarding the timing of an accident (marriage day vs. 31st day), property ownership, insurance compensation (₹25,00,000), and distribution of a deceased husband's insurance amount (₹10,00,000 to plaintiff). The further cross-examination was marked as "not required," and the case proceeded toward adjudication. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary In this Tamil Nadu District Court order (M.C.O.P. 7/2024) dated 12.03.2026 from Ramanathapuram, the plaintiff's cross-examination of defendants was recorded. The court examined contested claims regarding the timing of an accident (marriage day vs. 31st day), property ownership, insurance compensation (₹25,00,000), and distribution of a deceased husband's insurance amount (₹10,00,000 to plaintiff). The further cross-examination was marked as "not required," and the case proceeded toward adjudication. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts