ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.(Not Applicable) ASHWANI K SHARMA vs BAL DASSI(Not Applicable) — FAO/369/2014

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: HPHC010319682014

Filing Number

FAO/20373/2014

Filing Date

07-Oct-2014

Registration No

FAO/369/2014

Registration Date

25-Oct-2014

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja

Bench Type

Single

Category

FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER ( 17 )

Sub-Category

APPEAL FROM MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Last updated 15-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.(Not Applicable) ASHWANI K SHARMA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BAL DASSI(Not Applicable)

    Adv. ,NEMO,R-10,Hoshiyar Singh Rangra,R-1 TO 5 1123

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil KukrejaView PDF

    Summary: In FAO No. 369/2014 (OIC Ltd. v. Bal Dassi & Ors.), the court adjourned the case for hearing after two weeks as jointly requested by all parties. Respondent No. 6 was deleted from the proceedings, and all advocates appeared on behalf of their respective clients. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja

  4. 09-Dec-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil KukrejaView PDF

  5. 09-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja

  6. 08-Dec-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil KukrejaView PDF

  7. 17-Jul-2018

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar ThakurView PDF

  8. 29-Jun-2018

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar ThakurView PDF

  9. 20-Jul-2015

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 07-Oct-2014

    Case filed

    Registration No. FAO/369/2014

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: In FAO No. 369/2014 (OIC Ltd. v. Bal Dassi & Ors.), the court adjourned the case for hearing after two weeks as jointly requested by all parties. Respondent No. 6 was deleted from the proceedings, and all advocates appeared on behalf of their respective clients. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case