Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 24817 (CHH)

BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. BUDHRAM SINHA

MAC/321/2020 · 2026-07-05

Shri Sanjay K Agrawal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010049302020 2026:CGHC:27648 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 321 of 2020 1 - Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd. Through - Managing Director, 1st Floor, Furnas Icon, Servey No. 28, Dodanekundi, Banglore – 560037. At Present - In Front Of R.K.C. Jeet Tower, 2nd Floor, G.E. Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Budhram Sinha S/o Late Jhaduram Sinha Aged About 58 Years Resident Of Ward No. 3, Village Jamri, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Thagia Bai Sinha W/o Budhram Aged About 55 Years Resident Of Ward No. 3, Village Jamri, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Dinesh Kumar Sinha S/o Budhram Sinha Aged About 28 Years Resident Of Ward No. 3, Village Jamri, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Bisan Bai Sinha D/o Budhram Sinha Aged About 38 Years Resident Of Ward No. 3, Village Jamri, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Geeta Bai Sinha W/o Kamalnarayan Sinha Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Tolagoan, Post Tappa, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Gangabai Sinha W/o Gulab Sinha Aged About 32 Years R/o Dhamdip Nagar, Nagoba Mandir, Nagpur (Maharashtra), District : Nagpur, Maharashtra 7 - Artidas Sahu S/o Late Uttamdas Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Murmunda Tolagoan, Tahsil And Thana Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) 2 For Appellant : None For Respondents : None (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 06.07.2026 1. None appears for the appellant. Even in the second round of hearing, none appears on behalf of the appellant, nor any representation is made on behalf of the appellant. 2. In absence of any representation on behalf of the appellant, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. 3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2026.07.06 20:05:44 +0530