Kanagam vs Ramanathan and Two others — 100003/2017
Case under Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 Section 140,141. Status: For further Proceedings. Next hearing: 04th June 2026.
MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition
CNR: TNSV050000062017
Next Hearing
04th June 2026
Filing Number
100003/2017
Filing Date
03-01-2017
Registration No
100003/2017
Registration Date
04-01-2017
Court
Sub Court, Devakottai
Judge
1-Sub Judge , Devakottai
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kanagam
Adv. G. Ramu
Respondent(s)
Ramanathan and Two others
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Sub Judge , Devakottai
For further Proceedings
For further Proceedings
For further Proceedings
For further Proceedings
For further Proceedings
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | For further Proceedings |
| 09-04-2026 | For further Proceedings |
| 26-03-2026 | For further Proceedings |
| 12-03-2026 | For further Proceedings |
| 12-02-2026 | For further Proceedings |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 100003/2017 - Kanagam v. Ramanathan and Two Others On 31.07.2025, witness PW 2 (Sathaiah) was examined and cross-examined in MCOP No.3/2017. During cross-examination, the witness's testimony regarding a motor vehicle accident was challenged, with questions establishing that the witness did not directly observe the accident, was approximately 10 feet away, and may be biased as the injured party was from the same village. The witness's credibility was questioned regarding the direction of vehicle movement and accident circumstances. No re-examination was conducted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 100003/2017 - Kanagam v. Ramanathan and Two Others On 31.07.2025, witness PW 2 (Sathaiah) was examined and cross-examined in MCOP No.3/2017. During cross-examination, the witness's testimony regarding a motor vehicle accident was challenged, with questions establishing that the witness did not directly observe the accident, was approximately 10 feet away, and may be biased as the injured party was from the same village. The witness's credibility was questioned regarding the direction of vehicle movement and accident circumstances. No re-examination was conducted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts