Vagithamani vs Sekar — 33/2022

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166. Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.

MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition

CNR: TNTM040000512022

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

Next Hearing

16th June 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

51/2022

Filing Date

28-01-2022

Registration No

33/2022

Registration Date

31-03-2022

Court

Sub Court, Cheyyar

Judge

2-Additional Sub JudgeCheyyar

Acts & Sections

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Section 166
IA/4/2026 Classification : Reopen Petition Section SekarJeevitha (Minor)
IA/5/2026 Classification : Recall Petition Section SekarVagithamani

Petitioner(s)

Vagithamani

Adv. Tr.K. Vivekanandan, Tmt. B. Jothi Vivekanandan

Jeevitha (Minor)

Hemanth (Minor)

Pavun

Chandiran

Respondent(s)

Sekar

The Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

Dinesh

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Additional Sub JudgeCheyyar

21-04-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

18-04-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

08-04-2026

Evidence

10-03-2026

Evidence

12-02-2026

Evidence

Interim Orders

25-03-2025
Copy of Deposition

The court dismissed the petitioner's contentions regarding vehicle seizure and ownership claims in case No. 33/2022. The court found that only two persons (the vehicle owner and operator) had authority over the vehicle under IPC Section 73 P 6645, and rejected arguments that three persons were involved in the alleged offense. The court upheld the seizure proceedings and dismissed the petition with direction to proceed against the second respondent as per law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court dismissed the petitioner's contentions regarding vehicle seizure and ownership claims in case No. 33/2022. The court found that only two persons (the vehicle owner and operator) had authority over the vehicle under IPC Section 73 P 6645, and rejected arguments that three persons were involved in the alleged offense. The court upheld the seizure proceedings and dismissed the petition with direction to proceed against the second respondent as per law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Sub Court, Cheyyar All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case