Disposed

Arun Kumar Sharma v. Santoshkumar Ramlal Sharma and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Mar 2024CRA/160/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Registrar of the Bombay High Court granted a final two weeks to the parties in Civil Revision Application No.160 of 2023 to remove outstanding office objections under Chapter V of the Appellate Side Rules, failing which registration would stand refused without further reference.

What did the court decide?

Two weeks granted to remove office objections; on failure, registration stands refused without further reference.

Arun Kumar Sharma Vs Santoshkumar Ramlal… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.160 OF 2023

¶4

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders	Court’s or Judge’s orders
CORAM :S.R. AGRAWAL REGISTRAR (JUDL.-II)
DATE : 19^thMarch, 2024
None Present.
The above numbered Civil Revision
Application No.160 of 2023 is listed on the
board of Registrar third time. Already, four
weeks time has been granted, however, despite granting four weeks time, the office objections are not removed.
Here reference to Chapter V of the Bombay
High Court, Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (for short “Rules”) may be conveniently made.
It states about procedure after presentation, removal of office objections etc.
In view of provisions under Chapter V, Rule
3(ii), the Advocates/Parties are expected to remove the office objections within 14 days from the date of notification.
Rule (5) further provides that, if the office
objectionS are not removed as provided

¶5

under Rule 3, the office shall place the matter before the Registrar, who shall refuse the registration of such all matters. The prescribed time to remove the office objections provided under Rule 1960 has been expired long back. 04 weeks time was granted, but all in vain. The matter is lying ideally without any progress due to non removal of office objections. However, instead of passing order of refusal of registration outrightly, it would be just and proper to give one opportunity to remove the office objections. In turn, two weeks time is granted with directions to remove the office objections without fail. On failure, registration would stand refused, without further reference to the Court of Registrar. No further extension will be granted. sd/Registrar (Judl. - II) dsm

Arun Kumar Sharma v. Santoshkumar Ramlal Sharma and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Sharma v. Santoshkumar Ramlal Sharma and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Varad Developer Thr. Partner Sanjay Chandrakant Chauhan vs Mohan S. Mane (Deceased)(Thr. Lrs. Nila Mohan Mane and Others

Subhadeep Pritis Sarkar vs Pallabi Dutt Sarkar

Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Its Manager vs Charu Ashok Khandal (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. Ashok Radheshyam Sharma Khandal and Ors.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. Vs Coal Dongari (Andheri) Co. Operative Housing Society Limited @ Kol Dongari Co. Op. Hou. Soc. Ltd.

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Ltd. Vs Shri.Sonu Radka Salkar and Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai Vs Rajkumari Ramchandra Saroj and Ors.