Disposed¶11

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. Thr. Its Authorized Representative Hemant Bhosale v. Ravindra Ramchandra Lahoti and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jun 2025FA/581/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Failure to prosecute; service of notice on unserved respondent; notice returned unserved; last opportunity to take steps; conditional dismissal without further reference to Registrar; Chapter VII Rule 6(1)(e) Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960; Registrar (Judl-II); First Appeal No. 581 of 2024; Bombay High Court; order dated 21/01/2025; interim application.

What did the court decide?

One further opportunity of 02 weeks granted to the appellant to take steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 4; on failure the First Appeal along with Interim Application, if any, to stand dismissed against unserved respondent No. 4 without further reference to the Court of Registrar; office to await service of notice of respondent No. 2 for 06 weeks. ¶11

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. Thr. Its Authorized Representative Hemant Bhosale vs Ravindra Ramchandra Lahoti and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the First Appeal should be dismissed for failure to prosecute on account of the appellant's failure to take steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 4, or whether a further opportunity should be granted.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Instead of dismissing the appeal outrightly for failure to prosecute, the Registrar considered it just and proper to grant one more opportunity to the appellant to take steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 4.

¶10

Key takeaways

Learned advocate for the appellant is directed to take appropriate steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 4 within 02 weeks; on failure, the First Appeal along with any Interim Application shall stand dismissed against unserved respondent No. 4 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction — First Appeal No. 581 of 2024 — Order dated 21/01/2025 by Shri S. R. Agrawal, Registrar (Judl-II). Notice issued to respondent No. 4 was returned unserved and the appeal was listed on the Registrar's board for the second time for steps for service; the appellant's advocate took no steps and supplied no correct address despite 02 weeks previously granted. Invoking Chapter VII, Rule 6(1)(e), Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (under which the Registrar may dismiss matters where prosecution steps are not taken in time), the Registrar declined to dismiss the appeal outrightly and granted one final opportunity of 02 weeks to take steps for service upon unserved respondent No. 4, directing that on failure the First Appeal along with any Interim Application shall stand dismissed against unserved respondent No. 4 without further reference to the Court of Registrar. Office directed to await service of notice of respondent No. 2 for 06 weeks.

¶1

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

¶2

FIRST APPEAL NO. 581 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 : 21/01/2025

¶6

None Present

¶7

The notice issued to respondent No. 4 is returned unserved. Therefore, the above numbered First Appeal is listed on the board of registrar for second time for taking steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 4. However, learned advocate for appellant has neither taken any steps nor supplied proper and correct address of respondent No. 4 .

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

¶9

As such, the prescribed time to take steps for

¶10

service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 4 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 more opportunity to take steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 4.

¶11

In turn, learned advocate for the appellant is directed to take appropriate steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 4 within 02 weeks without fail. On failure, First Appeal alongwith Interim Application, if any would stand dismissed against unserved respondent No. 4 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

¶12

Await service of notice of respondent No. 2 for 06 weeks.

¶13

Sd/-

¶14

sat-R(J-II)-21.01.2025

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. Thr. Its Authorized Representative Hemant Bhosale v. Ravindra Ramchandra Lahoti and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. Thr. Its Authorized Representative Hemant Bhosale v. Ravindra Ramchandra Lahoti 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

Ritika Deepak Chavan and Ors. vs Atmaram Bhujangraj Ankalje and Anr.

Shri. Chandrakant Shankar Machale vs Shri. Ashok Bhairu Mohite, Thr. P.A. Shri. Yashwant Bhairu Mohit (Res. 1 to 9) and Ors.

Universal Sompot Gen. Insu. Co. Ltd. vs Inayatulla @ Inayat Badruddin Shaikh and Ors.

Kirit P. Kapadia (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. Smt. Chandrika Kirit Kapadia vs Kamleshsingh Harnamsingh Chowhan

The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sushma Machhindra Khawale and Anr.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr. Divisional Controller, Satara vs Shri. Sanjay Sampat Gangawane