MRS. LAKSHMAMMA vs MR GEORGE BORON — MFA/209/2025
Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section 173(1). Next hearing: 10th July 2026.
CNR: KAHC010010752025
Filing Number
MFA/226/2025
Filing Date
07-Jan-2025
Registration No
MFA/209/2025
Registration Date
09-Jan-2025
Judge
Shivashankar Amarannavar
Coram
Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
MFA ( 124 )
Sub-Category
CA-Claimants Appeal ( 2 )
Judicial Branch
Judicial Section
Last updated 11-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MRS. LAKSHMAMMA
Adv. NAGARAJA R C
-
2.MR. PUTTASWAMY
Respondent(s)
-
1.MR GEORGE BORON
-
2.MR. M. PAPARAJU
-
3.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Adv. B C SEETHARAMA RAO
Case History
-
10-Jul-2026
Next hearingPending
-
10-Jul-2026
Hearing - Interlocutory Appln
Shivashankar Amarannavar
-
09-Jun-2026
Shivashankar AmarannavarView PDF
Case Summary: MFA/209/2025 The High Court of Karnataka allowed the appellants' (Mrs. Lakshmamma and Mr. Puttaswamy) interim application seeking condonation of 100 days' delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court was satisfied with the cause shown and granted the condonation. The matter has been listed for admission on 10.07.2026, and the Registry was directed to remove counsel A. Ravishankar from the record for Respondent No.3 due to lack of proper authorization. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
30-Oct-2025
Hearing - Interlocutory Appln
Chillakur Sumalatha
-
15-Jan-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Jan-2025
Case filed
Registration No. MFA/209/2025
Case Summary: MFA/209/2025 The High Court of Karnataka allowed the appellants' (Mrs. Lakshmamma and Mr. Puttaswamy) interim application seeking condonation of 100 days' delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court was satisfied with the cause shown and granted the condonation. The matter has been listed for admission on 10.07.2026, and the Registry was directed to remove counsel A. Ravishankar from the record for Respondent No.3 due to lack of proper authorization. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts