Disposed¶13

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swati Sitaram Jadhav and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Jan 2025IA/1123/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Registrar (Judl-II) order, Bombay High Court, 04/12/2025; I.A. No. 1123 of 2025 in First Appeal (ST) No. 16434 of 2018; unserved Respondent No. 1; steps for service of notice; failure to prosecute; Chapter VII Rule 6(1)(e) Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960; last/final opportunity of 02 weeks; automatic dismissal without further reference to Registrar; appellant's advocate directed to take steps.

What did the court decide?

A final opportunity of 02 weeks granted to the learned advocate for the appellant to take appropriate steps for service of notice upon unserved Respondent No. 1; on failure, the Interim Application to stand dismissed against unserved Respondent No. 1 without further reference to the Court of Registrar. ¶13

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Swati Sitaram Jadhav and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the Interim Application should be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the prescribed time under the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 for taking steps for service of notice upon unserved Respondent No. 1 having expired, or whether a further opportunity should be given.

¶12

Court's answer

Instead of passing an order of dismissal outright for failure to take steps for service, it would be just and proper to give one more opportunity to take steps for service of notice upon unserved Respondent No. 1.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The learned advocate for the appellant is directed to take appropriate steps for service of notice upon unserved Respondent No. 1 within 02 weeks without fail.

¶13

Key takeaways

On failure to take such steps within 02 weeks, the Interim Application will stand dismissed against unserved Respondent No. 1 automatically, without further reference to the Court of Registrar.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction — Order dated 04/12/2025 by Registrar (Judl-II), Shri S. R. Agrawal, in Interim Application No. 1123 of 2025 in First Appeal (ST) No. 16434 of 2018. Notice on Respondent No. 1 stood returned unserved and the appellant's advocate had taken no steps nor supplied a proper address despite 02 weeks already granted. Invoking Chapter VII, Rule 6(1)(e) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, under which matters where service steps are not taken within the prescribed time are placed before the Registrar who may dismiss them for failure to prosecute, the Registrar declined to dismiss the application outright and granted one final opportunity of 02 weeks to take steps for service, directing that on failure the Interim Application shall stand dismissed against unserved Respondent No. 1 without further reference to the Registrar. Procedural (service-side) order; not a reasoned judgment on merits.

¶1

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

¶2

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1123 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 16434 OF 2018

¶3

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

¶4

Registrar’s orders

¶5

CORAM : SHRI S. R. AGRAWAL

REGISTRAR (JUDL -II)

DATE : 04/12/2025

none present

The notices of respondent no. 1 is returned unserved. Therefore, the above numbered interim application is listed on the board of registrar for second time for taking steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent no. 1. However, learned advocate for appellant has neither taken any steps nor supplied proper and correct address of respondent no. 1 .

¶10

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

¶11

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.:

¶12

As such, the prescribed time to take steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent no. 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 more opportunity to take steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent no. 1.

¶13

In turn, learned advocate for the appellant is directed to take appropriate steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent no. 1 within 02 weeks without fail. On failure, Interim Application would stand dismissed against unserved respondent no. 1 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

¶14

Sd/-

¶15

REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

¶16

sat-R(J-II)-04.12.2025

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swati Sitaram Jadhav and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swati Sitaram Jadhav 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jagdish Jagmohandas Engineer (Since Deceased) Amay Jagdish Engineer and Anr. vs Dhankumar Thakordas Javeri (Since Deceased) Mrs. Molinadevi Dhankumar Javeri and Ors.

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

Sou. Nandini Nivrutti Desai vs 1.PRAMILA Sarjerao Khot

United India Insurance Company Limited., Thr.Divisional Office No. 568 vs Shobha Amrut Amrolkar and Ors.

Smt. Neena Paresh Shah and Anr. vs Girish Vinodchandra Dhruva and Ors.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr.the Divisional Controller vs Manoj Ganpat Vitmal