Disposed¶11

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Vishnu Tirthdas Tharaney and Anr.

Bombay HC7 May 2025FA/1901/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First Appeal No. 1901 of 2024; Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, Chapter VII Rule 2(iii); dismissal for non-prosecution; default of payment of process fees; failure to supply copies; Registrar (JUDL-II) S. R. Agrawal; notice to respondent No. 2; two weeks excluding summer vacation; notice returnable date extended ten weeks; procedural order dated 07/05/2025.

What did the court decide?

One final opportunity of two weeks (excluding summer vacation) granted to the appellant's advocate to supply copies for issuing notice to respondent No. 2; on failure the appeal stands dismissed against respondent No. 2 without further reference to the Court of Registrar; if copies are supplied, the notice returnable date is extended for ten weeks. ¶11

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Vishnu Tirthdas Tharaney and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the First Appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution for default in payment of process fees and failure to supply copies within the prescribed time, or whether one further opportunity should be given to supply the copies.

¶10

Court's answer

Although the prescribed time to supply copies had expired and no steps were taken, the Registrar did not dismiss the appeal outright and considered it just and proper to grant one opportunity to supply the necessary copies.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Learned advocate for the appellant directed to supply necessary copies within two weeks (excluding summer vacation); on failure, the First Appeal shall stand dismissed against respondent No. 2 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

¶11

Key takeaways

If the copies are supplied, the notice returnable date shall be extended for ten weeks.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Registrar (Judicial-II) Shri S. R. Agrawal, order dated 07/05/2025 in First Appeal No. 1901 of 2024: appeal listed for the second time for supply of copies; two weeks earlier granted lapsed without compliance. Invoking Chapter VII, Rule 2(iii), Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (matters to be dismissed for non-prosecution on default of payment of process fees and failure to supply copies), the Registrar granted one opportunity of two weeks (excluding summer vacation) to supply copies for issuing notice to respondent No. 2; on failure the appeal to stand dismissed against respondent No. 2 without further reference to the Court of Registrar; if copies supplied, notice returnable date extended for ten weeks.

¶1

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

¶2

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1901 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 : 07/05/2025

¶6

None Present

¶7

The above numbered First Appeal is listed for second time on the Board of Registrar for supplying copies. Already two weeks time was granted. However, despite of granting two weeks time, the Advocate for the Appellant has not supplied copies for issuing Notice to the respondent no. 2.

¶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

¶10

provided under Rules,1960 has been expired. 02 weeks time was granted, but all in vain. The matter is lying ideally without any progress as learned Advocate for the Applicant has not taken any steps. However, instead of passing order of dismissal outrightly, it would be just and proper to give one opportunity to supply the necessary copies.

¶11

In turn, learned advocate for the appellant is directed to supply necessary copies within two weeks (excluding summer vacation) without fail. On failure, the First Appeal would stand dismissed against respondent No. 2 without further reference to the Court of Registrar. If copies supplied, notice returnable date be extended for ten weeks

¶12

Sd/REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

¶13

sat-R(J-II)-07.05.2025

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Vishnu Tirthdas Tharaney and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Vishnu Tirthdas Tharaney and Anr.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sultan Akhtar Mohd Hashim Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjoy Shivdas Mukherjee vs State of Maharashtra

Shri. Ganapathy Sundaram Easwaramoorthi vs Mr. Varad v Shirke and Anr.

Sarita Tushar Agrawal vs Mahendra Madhukar Luley and Anr.

Navin Kirsan Sarsar vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rakhi Sanjay Bharuka Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others