Allowed

Shewantabai Gangaram Rodekar and Ors. v. United India Ins Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Dec 2017CA/12247/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed a civil application to set aside a dismissal of a cross-objection. The court condoned delay, set aside the impugned order regarding the absence of respondent no.3, and permitted service of notice via newspaper publication in Nizamabad.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; impugned order set aside; notice by newspaper publication permitted.

Shewantabai Gangaram Rodekar and Ors. Vs United India Ins Co. Ltd. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

{1}

¶2

916 ca 12247-11.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12247 OF 2011 IN X-OBJST/6997/2005 WITH CA/7583/2005 IN FA/19/1998

¶5

SHEWANTABAI GANGARAM RODEKAR AND ORS

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

UNITED INDIA INS CO LTD AND ORS

¶8

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. D. Y. Nandedkar. Advocate for Respondent nos. 1, 2 : Mr. D. V. Soman Advocate for Respondent nos.4 : Mr. U. B. Bilolikar

¶9

CORAM : K.K. SONAWANE, J.

¶10

DATE : 6 December, 2017.

¶11

PER COURT:

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 & 4. None appears for respondent no.3.

¶13

Perused the application. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that due to unavoidable circumstances, steps could not be taken against the respondent no.3, which resulted into dismissal of the cross objection filed on behalf of applicants. He explained circumstances and prayed that the impugned order of dismissal of the cross-objection may be set aside and the applicants may be allowed to take steps for securing the presence of respondent no.3 in this proceedings.

¶14

The learned counsel for the respondents fairly conceded to pass suitable orders in th interest of justice.

¶15

{2}

¶16

916 ca 12247-11.odt

¶17

In view of nature of the subject matter and the reasons mentioned in the application, there is no impediment to allow the application. Accordingly the application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause- 'B' & 'C'. The delay caused for filing present application, stands condoned. The impugned order of dismissal of cross-objection against respondent no.3 is hereby set aside and quashed and same be restored at its original stage. The applicants are hereby permitted to serve the notice to the respondent no.3 through paper publication. The notice is made returnable on 22^nd January, 2018.

¶18

The Registry to do the needful to facilitate the applicants to serve the notice to respondent no.3 by publishing the notice in daily newspaper having wide circulation in the area of Nizamabad District of Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly, application stands disposed of.

¶19

[K.K. SONAWANE] JUDGE.

¶20

vsm/-

Shewantabai Gangaram Rodekar and Ors. v. United India Ins Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shewantabai Gangaram Rodekar and Ors. v. United India Ins Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Annasaheb Janardhan Satav Vs Ramdas Janardhan Satav and Ors.

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd, Thr Its Legal Manager, Aurangabad Vs Sunita Vasant @ Santosh Jadhav and Ors.

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd, Thr Its Legal Manager, Aurangabad Vs Sunita Vasant @ Santosh Jadhav and Ors.

M I D C through Managing Director Latur Vs Sheshrao Devrao Deshmukh and Ors.

The Executive Engineer Irrigation Project Majbutikaran Division Omerga and Others Vs Ahamad Afsar Jani Shamshoddin Rampure

Saghameshwar Babuappa Hyderabade and Anr. Vs Sunil Madhavrao Mahajan and Anr.