SMT. GANGA DEVI MEENA BISHT, YOGESH PACHOLIA vs HARISH CHANDRA SHARMA — AO/22/2016
Case under An Appeal U/s 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section OTHER. Next hearing: 04th June 2026.
CNR: UKHC010001942016
Next Hearing
04th June 2026
Filing Number
AO/1000758/2016
Filing Date
19-01-2016
Registration No
AO/22/2016
Registration Date
19-01-2016
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
APPEAL ( 3 )
Sub-Category
UNDER SECTION173 MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SMT. GANGA DEVI MEENA BISHT, YOGESH PACHOLIA
SRI MANOJ BISHT
Adv. MEENA BISHT,YOGESH PACHOLIA
MASTER PRAMOD BISHT
MASTER PRAKASH BISHT
Respondent(s)
HARISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Adv. ,D N SHARMA 1123
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Adv. SIDDHARTHA BISHT
Hearing History
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal
ADMISSION MATTERS -25
PERSONAL APPEARANCE -4
PERSONAL APPEARANCE -4
PERSONAL APPEARANCE -4
FOR FINAL HEARING -40
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-06-2026 | ADMISSION MATTERS -25 |
| 20-05-2026 | PERSONAL APPEARANCE -4 |
| 02-05-2026 | PERSONAL APPEARANCE -4 |
| 15-04-2026 | PERSONAL APPEARANCE -4 |
| 08-01-2026 | FOR FINAL HEARING -40 |
Orders
Case Adjourned In AO No. 22 of 2016, Hon'ble Justice Alok Kumar Verma adjourned the appeal hearing to 20.05.2026. The respondent no.2 was granted ten days' time to file an affidavit with supporting case law regarding the appellants' claim that the multiplier was wrongly applied to monthly income instead of yearly income, and the respondent's contention that appellants are not entitled to double benefits. The personal appearance requirement for the Regional Manager was disposed of, allowing video conferencing participation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Adjourned In AO No. 22 of 2016, Hon'ble Justice Alok Kumar Verma adjourned the appeal hearing to 20.05.2026. The respondent no.2 was granted ten days' time to file an affidavit with supporting case law regarding the appellants' claim that the multiplier was wrongly applied to monthly income instead of yearly income, and the respondent's contention that appellants are not entitled to double benefits. The personal appearance requirement for the Regional Manager was disposed of, allowing video conferencing participation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts