Disposed

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr. Its General Manager v. Mr. Shravankumar Alias Pappu Ramlularak Dubey and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Aug 2024IA/8838/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Registrar's procedural order on an interim application in a first appeal: notice to Respondent No.1 returned unserved and appellant took no service steps. One final two-week opportunity granted to serve notice, failing which the interim applications will stand dismissed automatically.

What the court decided

AI extract

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation… — 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. 8837 OF 2024 a/w INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8838 OF 2024 IN

¶3

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 14473 OF 2024

¶4

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

¶5

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

¶6

DATE : 25/10/2024

¶7

None Present

¶8

The notice issued to respondent Nos. 1 is returned unserved. Therefore, the above numbered Interim Applications are 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.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

¶14

sat-R(J-II)-25.10.2024

¶15

Sd/-

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr. Its General Manager v. Mr. Shravankumar Alias Pappu Ramlularak Dubey and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr. Its General Manager v. Mr. Shravankumar Alias Pappu Ramlularak Dubey and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Thru. Its Divisional Manager vs Smt. Usha Narayan Pawar and Ors.

Shri Parvati Shankar Nagari Sahakari Patasanstha Ltd. Uttur vs Sou. Santoshi Shrikant Bhosale

Shri Parvati Shankar Nagari Sahakari Patasanastha Ltdutturthrough Itsmanager Prakash Krushna Mohite vs Sou. Rupali Rahul More

Mukesh Radheshyam Soni vs State of Maharashtra

Mukesh Radheshyam Soni vs State of Maharashtra

Mukesh Radheshyam Soni vs State of Maharashtra