Disposed¶5

Girish Balshet Ekavade v. Avinash Vishnu Mukadam and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Aug 2025CRA/356/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court; CRA/Civil Revision Application No. 356 of 2023; farad continuation sheet; Registrar (Judl.-II) S.R. Agrawal; order dated 19 March 2024; office objections not removed; refusal of registration; Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960, Chapter V, Rule 3(ii) (14-day removal period) and Rule (5)/Rule 3 (refusal of registration); third listing before Registrar; four weeks' earlier time lapsed; final two weeks granted; automatic refusal on failure, no further extension; none present.

What did the court decide?

Interim administrative order granting a final two weeks to remove office objections; on failure, registration of the Civil Revision Application to stand refused automatically without further reference to the Court of Registrar; no further extension to be granted. ¶5

Girish Balshet Ekavade Vs Avinash Vishnu Mukadam and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.356 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.356 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

Girish Balshet Ekavade v. Avinash Vishnu Mukadam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish Balshet Ekavade v. Avinash Vishnu Mukadam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Oliver Anthony Miranda vs Savio Miranda

Sachin Narsinh Godbole and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prakash Dinkar Jadhav vs the State of Maharashtra Thru. G.P. and Ors.

Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited vs Atria Brindavan Power Private Limited

Shiakh Asif Shaikh Rashid @ Asif Shaikh Rasheed vs Mufti Mohammad Ismail Abdul Khalique

Jambu Kumar Seth vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.