The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr. Divisinal Controller, Palghar vs Dattu Shidva Shingada and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr. Divisinal Controller, Palghar vs Dattu Shidva Shingada and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Statutory amounts in all the above appeals directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal with accrued interest, parties at liberty to withdraw as per Rule; record and proceedings to be sent back to the Tribunal; court fees to be refunded to the parties; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Having disposed of all the above first appeals, what residual steps remained: transmission of the statutory amounts to the Tribunal (with accrued interest), return of record and proceedings, refund of court fees, and disposal of pending applications.

Ratio / Principle

The statutory amount in all the above appeals is to be transmitted to the Tribunal along with accrued interest thereon, and the parties are at liberty to withdraw it as per Rule.

Key takeaways

Record and proceedings are to be sent back to the Tribunal.ratio¶55
Court fees are to be refunded to the parties.ratio¶56
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Consequential order dated 07.07.2025 of Shivkumar Dige, J., High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), closing out a consolidated group of twenty-nine numbered matters led by First Appeal No. 1108 of 2004 and also comprising 'First Appeal (ST)' and 'Rejected'-captioned matters, in which all the first appeals had already been disposed of and only the transmission order remained. The Court directed: (i) the statutory amount in all the above appeals to be transmitted to the Tribunal along with accrued interest thereon, the parties being at liberty to withdraw it as per Rule; (ii) record and proceedings to be sent back to the Tribunal; (iii) court fees to be refunded to the parties; and (iv) pending applications, if any, to stand disposed of. Appellants are chiefly insurance companies (New India, National, Oriental, United India, Bajaj Allianz, Iffco Tokio, Reliance General, Magma HDI/Magma General, Royal Sundaram) besides the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Pune Mahanagar Parivahan Mahamandal Ltd.; several respondents are minors represented through guardians. No statute or precedent is cited and no monetary figure appears.

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.¶5
respondent
Ajay B. Panchal and anr.¶6
appellant
The National Insurance Company Ltd.¶8
respondent
Ashwini Bhuvanendra Pai and ors.¶9
appellant
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.¶12
respondent
Sanjay Vithal Teli and anr.¶12
appellant
The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co Ltd.¶14
respondent
Kiran Namdev Kamble and ors.¶15
appellant
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.¶18
respondent
Bhimrao Laxman Kadimani and anr.¶18
appellant
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The Divisional Manager, Satara Division.¶20
respondent
Sarika Sunil Madane and ors.¶20
appellant
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.¶22
respondent
Jeevan Tatoba Pawar and anr.¶23
appellant
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.¶25
respondent
Jayashree Dattaram Mhatre and ors.¶25
appellant
The National Insurance Co. Ltd.¶30
respondent
Sumitradevi Gayaprasad Shukla and ors.¶30
appellant
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Ltd.¶30
respondent
Sonu Radka Salkar and ors.¶30
appellant
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.¶30
respondent
Chotulal Sitaram Moria and anr.¶30
appellant
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited.¶30
respondent
Master Mangesh Arun Kale Through His Mother and Natural Guardian Taibai Arun Kale¶30
appellant
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Motor Third Party Claim Hub¶30
respondent
Rama Muthaiyya Suvarna and ors.¶30
appellant
National Insurance Company Limited¶30
respondent
Kanabhai Jivabhai Koli and anr.¶30
appellant
Namdev Tukaram Patil and anr.¶30
respondent
Malan Namdev Kamble and ors.¶30
appellant
The National Insurance Co. Ltd.¶30
respondent
Sunanda Bajirao Dalave and ors.¶30
appellant
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.¶35
respondent
Rani Shivaji Sathe and ors.¶35
appellant
General Manager, Pune Mahanagar Parivahan Mahamandal Ltd. Pune (pmt)¶37
respondent
Amna Ishaque Shaikh (minor) Represented By Smt. Rashida Ejaz Khan and ors.¶37
appellant
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Divisional Officer¶38
respondent
Prashant Gajanan Kannekar and anr.¶38
appellant
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.¶38
respondent
Rafiq Abdul Shaikh and anr.¶38
appellant
Magma HDIGeneral Insurance Co. Ltd.¶38
respondent
Sandhya Mahendra Gaikwad and ors.¶38
appellant
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.¶38
respondent
Ashadevi Ramdarshan Mishra and ors.¶38
appellant
United India Insurance¶38
respondent
Dalimba Mallick and ors.¶38
appellant
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited¶38
respondent
Valsala Rajeev and ors.¶38
appellant
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Through Divisional Controller, Nashik¶42
respondent
Nivrutti Fakira Gaikwad¶42
appellant
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Mumbai Legal Hub¶43
respondent
Seema Arun Hadke and ors.¶43
appellant
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Corporate Office¶44
respondent
Kum.Rizwana Khatoon Mehoob Khan (minor) Through Her Natural Gauridan Shri.Mehboob Alam Khan and anr.¶44
appellant
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Mumbai¶45
respondent
Shakil Babu Shaikh and anr.¶45
appellant
The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr. Divisional Controller, Palghar¶45
respondent
Dattu Shidva Shingada and ors.¶45

Coram

AI extract

Shivkumar Dige, J.author¶46