Disposed¶12

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai v. Farheen Mauzammil Shaikh and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Mar 2025FA/1869/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Abatement of appeal; legal representatives of deceased respondent; failure to bring LRs on record; Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960, Chapter VII Rule 6(2); 90 days from reported death; Bailiff's report of death; two weeks' time lapsed; last opportunity of 10 weeks; conditional abatement without further reference to Registrar; Registrar (Judl-II) order; First Appeal No. 1869 of 2024; deceased Respondent No. 5 Abdul Latif Haji Shamsuddin Shaikh.

What did the court decide?

One final opportunity of 10 weeks granted to the appellant to bring the legal representatives of deceased Respondent No. 5 on record; on failure, the proceeding would stand abated against deceased Respondent No. 5 without further reference to the Court of Registrar. ¶12

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai vs Farheen Mauzammil Shaikh and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether, the prescribed time having expired without the appellant taking steps to bring the legal representatives of deceased Respondent No. 5 on record, the appeal should be ordered abated against Respondent No. 5 outright, or whether one further opportunity should be granted to bring the legal representatives on record.

¶11

Court's answer

Instead of passing an order of abatement outright, it would be just and proper to give the appellant one opportunity to take appropriate steps for bringing the legal representatives of deceased Respondent No. 5 on record.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The learned advocate for the appellant is directed to take appropriate steps to bring the legal representatives of deceased Respondent No. 5 on record within 10 weeks; on failure, the proceeding would stand abated against deceased Respondent No. 5 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

¶12

Key takeaways

The prescribed time to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased Respondent No. 5 as provided under the 1960 Rules has expired, and the two weeks previously granted produced no steps.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, First Appeal No. 1869 of 2024 — Order dated 10/03/2025 by Registrar (Judl-II) S. R. Agrawal. Respondent No. 5 (Abdul Latif Haji Shamsuddin Shaikh) was reported dead vide Bailiff's Report dated 13/03/2024. Although two weeks' time had been granted, the appellant's advocate took no steps to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent on record. Invoking Chapter VII, Rule 6(2) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (under which, where 90 days elapse from the reported death of a party without the appellant acting to bring the heirs on record, the matter is to be placed before the Registrar for abatement orders), the Registrar held that instead of passing an order of abatement outright it would be just and proper to give one opportunity. The appellant's advocate was directed to take appropriate steps to bring the legal representatives of deceased Respondent No. 5 on record within 10 weeks, failing which the proceeding would stand abated against deceased Respondent No. 5 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

¶1

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

¶2

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1869 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 : 10/03/2025

¶6

Adv. Niketan Nakhawa present for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and 6.

¶7

Respondent Nos. 5 namely Abdul Latif Haji Shamsuddin Shaikh is reported to be dead vide Bailiff’s Report dated 13/03/2024.

¶8

The above numbered First Appeal is listed for second time on the board of Registrar for taking steps to bring the legal representatives of deceased respondent Nos. 5 on record. Already two weeks time was granted. However, despite of granting two weeks time, learned Advocate for the Appellant has not taken any steps for bringing the legal representatives of deceased Respondent Nos. 5 on record.

¶9

In view of provisions under Chapter VII, Rule 6 (2)of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules, 1960, in cases where 90 days have elapsed from the reported death of any of the parties to the appeal and no action has been taken by the Appellant to bring the heirs of the deceased party on record the matter shall be placed

¶10

before the Registrar for orders regarding the abatement of the appeal as against the deceased party as soon as possible.

¶11

As such, the prescribed time to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased Respondent No. 5 as provided under Rules 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 abatement outrightly, it would be just and proper to give one opportunity to take appropriate steps for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased Respondent No. 5, if any .

¶12

In turn, learned advocate for the appellant is directed to take appropriate steps for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased Respondent No. 5, if any on record within 10 weeks. On failure, proceeding would stand abated against deceased Respondent Nos. 5 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

¶13

REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

¶14

sat-R(J-II)-10.03.2025

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai v. Farheen Mauzammil Shaikh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai v. Farheen Mauzammil Shaikh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Firoj Munawar Mansuri vs State of Maharashtra

Madhukar Pandurang Adling and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjay Waghu Bharit vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mohammad Arif Ahmed Shaikh and Anr.

Gulab Rambhau Kshirsagar Died Thr Lrs Kantabai Gulabrao Kshirsagar and Others vs State of of Maharashtra through the Collector and Others

Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (Msrtc) vs Smt. Janhavi Jeevankumar @ Jeevan Gurao and Ors.