SBI General Insurance Company Limited v. Shri. Dhananjay Maruti Pawar and Anr.

Bombay HC3 May 2024IA/8510/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim application in a first appeal listed before the Registrar as notices to both respondents returned unserved and no steps taken for service. One final two-week opportunity granted to effect service, failing which the interim application stands dismissed against unserved respondent No. 1 without further reference.

What did the court decide?

Two weeks' last chance granted to take steps for service of notices on unserved respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

SBI General Insurance Company Limited vs Shri… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8510 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 704 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 : 06/12/2024

¶6

None Present

¶7

The notice issued to respondent Nos. 1 is returned unserved. Therefore, the above numbered Interim Application is listed on the board of registrar for second time for taking steps for service of notices upon unserved respondent Nos. 1 However, learned advocate for appellant has neither taken any steps nor supplied proper and correct address of respondent Nos. 1 .

¶8

In view of provisions under Chapter VII, Rule 6 (1) (e) of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules, 1960, Immediately after the expiry of the period prescribed under the foregoing sub-rule of this rule for taking the requisite steps for the issue of fresh notice or or supplying postal stamps to cover the postal and registration charges, the office shall place before the Registrar all such matters in which steps have not been taken for the issue of fresh notices or the postal stamps to cover the postal and

¶9

registration charges have not been supplied within the prescribed time, and the Registrar shall dismiss the matter for failure to prosecute.:

¶10

As such, the prescribed time to take steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent Nos. 1 as provided under Rule 1960 has been expired. 02 weeks time was granted, but all in vain. The matter is lying ideally without any progress due to not taken any steps. However, instead of passing order of dismissal outrightly, it would be just and proper to give one opportunity to take steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent Nos. 1 .

¶11

In turn, two weeks time is granted with directions to take appropriate steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent Nos. 1 without fail. On failure, Interim Application would stand dismissed against unserved respondent Nos. 1 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

¶12

The notice issued to respondent No. 2 is returned unserved. Hence, two weeks time is granted as a last chance to take appropriate steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent. On failure, necessary order including dismissal of Appeal against unserved Respondent No. 2 shall be passed on the next date.

¶13

Sd/REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

¶14

sat-R(J-II)-06.12.2024

SBI General Insurance Company Limited v. Shri. Dhananjay Maruti Pawar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

SBI General Insurance Company Limited v. Shri. Dhananjay Maruti Pawar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Shobha Tanaji @ Tayapa Hajare and Ors.

Sabra Nesha Ainul Ansari and Ors. Vs the General Manager, Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Corporation

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs Ronak Sunil Murarka and Ors.

Sandeep @Chakva Chandrakant Gore Vs State of Maharashtra

Rahul @ Rawul Bhaguram Sawant and Ors. Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Kamal Mahavir Mandave and Ors. Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation