KAPIL RASTOGI AND ORS PRIYA RASTOGI, ANKUR RASTOGI vs SH SHIV DAYAL GURJAR AND ORS — CMA/50/2017

Next hearing: 21st May 2026.

Next hearing 21-May-2026

CNR: RJHC020456552016

Filing Number

CMA/17538/2016

Filing Date

21-Dec-2016

Registration No

CMA/50/2017

Registration Date

03-Jan-2017

Judge

K. S. Jhaveri

Coram

K. S. Jhaveri

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

Compensation Matters (MACT) ( 1700 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL

Last updated 09-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KAPIL RASTOGI AND ORS PRIYA RASTOGI, ANKUR RASTOGI

  2. 2.Kapil Rastogi S/o Shri Pawan Rastogi B/c Vaish

  3. 3.Kanchan Rastogi D/o Shri Pawan Rastogi B/c Vaish

  4. 4.Pawan Rastogi S/o Shri Som Prakash Rastogi B/c Vaish

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SH SHIV DAYAL GURJAR AND ORS

  2. 2.Shri Shiv Dayal Gurjar S/o Shri Dharam Singh Gurjar

  3. 3.Shri Rajesh Kumar Pareek S/o Shri Kailash Pareek

    Adv. DINESH PAREEK

  4. 4.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Manager

Case History

  1. 21-May-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 21-May-2026

    For Orders- Notice Awaited

    K. S. Jhaveri

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Sandeep TanejaView PDF

    The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed three interlocutory applications as infructuous or unnecessary on 24/03/2026. In CMA No. 50/2017, the application to take documents on record was deferred for consideration at the appeal hearing. In CMA No. 5185/2016, the tagging application was dismissed as the appeals had already been consolidated and listed. In CMA No. 51/2017, the service direction application was dismissed as counsel had already accepted notice for the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 05-Feb-2026

    Anoop Kumar DhandView PDF

  5. 21-Dec-2016

    Case filed

    Registration No. CMA/50/2017

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed three interlocutory applications as infructuous or unnecessary on 24/03/2026. In CMA No. 50/2017, the application to take documents on record was deferred for consideration at the appeal hearing. In CMA No. 5185/2016, the tagging application was dismissed as the appeals had already been consolidated and listed. In CMA No. 51/2017, the service direction application was dismissed as counsel had already accepted notice for the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case