Chhattisgarh High Court
WP227/371/2024 of CHOLAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs KHEMRAJ YADAV on 25 September 2026
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 371 of 2024 Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited S/o Simran Tower, Second Floor, In Front Of L.I.C. Building Raipur, Pandari, Raipur Tahsil And, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Khemraj
CGHC010141342024
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 371 of 2024
Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited S/o Simran Tower, Second Floor, In Front Of L.I.C. Building Raipur, Pandari, Raipur Tahsil And, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Khemraj Yadav S/o Lakhiram Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Matang, Post Sankara, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
2 - Madhav Singh Banjare, S/o Late Shivprasad Banjare Aged About 47
Years R/o Village Bagaud, Ward No. 8, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh Wrongly Mentioned In Impugned Order As Simran Tower, Second Floor, In Front Of Lic Building, Pandari, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle No.
Cg-04-Mn-9204)
3 - Jeet Singh Banjare, S/o Madhav Singh Banjare Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bagaud, House No. 317, Bajrang Chauk, Ward No. -8, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle No. Cg-04-Mn-
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) :
None
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
Order on Board
26/09/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the claim application pending before the learned Claims Tribunal has already been decided and, therefore, the present writ petition has become infructuous, and he does not want to press the same.
2. On the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok