Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Pune v. Smt. Priyanka Sandip Jadhav and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Jul 2024FA/751/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Registrar noted the appellant's repeated failure to supply copies despite a granted three-week extension. Instead of immediate dismissal, the court granted another three-week extension to supply copies. Failure to comply will result in dismissal of the appeal against respondent No. 5.

What did the court decide?

Three weeks time granted to supply necessary copies; further consequence of dismissal upon failure notified.

Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

FIRST APPEAL NO. 751 OF 2024

¶3

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s order appearance, Court’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders

¶4

CORAM : SHRI S. R. AGRAWAL REGISTRAR (JUDL -II)

¶5

DATE : 25/07/2024

¶6

None Present

¶7

The above numbered First Appeal is listed for second time on the Board of Registrar for supplying copies. Already three weeks time was granted. However, despite of granting three weeks time, the Advocate for the Appellant has not supplied copies for issuing Notice to respondent No. 5.

¶8

In view of provisions under Chapter VII, Rule 2 (iii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 matters to be dismissed for non-prosecution in case of default of payment of process fess and failure to supply copies – Immediately after the expiry of the time prescribed in the foregoing sub-rules of this rule for the supply of copies, the Office shall place before the Registrar all such matters in which the process fees have not been paid and/or the copies have not been supplied within the prescribed time, and the Registrar shall dismiss all such matters for failure to prosecute.

¶9

As such, the prescribed time to supply copies, as provided under Rules,1960 has been expired. 03 weeks time was granted, but all in vain. The matter is lying ideally without any progress as learned Advocate for the Appellant has not taken any steps. However,

¶10

instead of passing order of dismissal outrightly, it would be just and proper to give one more opportunity to supply the necessary copies.

¶11

In turn, three weeks time is granted with directions to supply necessary copies without fail. On failure, the First Appeal would stand dismissed against respondent No. 5 without further reference to the Court of Registrar. If copies supplied, notices returnable date be extended for ten weeks

¶12

Sd/REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

¶13

sat-R(J-II)-25.07.2024

Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Pune v. Smt. Priyanka Sandip Jadhav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Pune v. Smt. Priyanka Sandip Jadhav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vinita Dighe vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Dept. of Coop Soc and Ors.

Vithal Bapu Darekar vs the Revenue Minister State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sanjay Sakharam Gharat vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Gp. and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra vs Laxman S/O Rangnath Savant

Priti Sundeep Patel Thr. Her C.A. Sanjay N. Ghuge vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Govt. Pleader A.S. High Court Bombay and Ors.

Saraswati Medical Foundation and Research Centre, Kolhapur vs Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur District, Kolhapur