Maharashtra State Road Trasport Corporation Thr. the General Manager, Pune v. Chandrakant Sopan Koli

Bombay HC29 Jan 2025IA/1285/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Registrar's power to dismiss matters for non-prosecution; default in supply of copies; process fees not paid; Chapter VII Rule 2(iii) Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960; last/final opportunity before automatic dismissal without further reference; interim applications in First Appeal (Stamp) No. 2949 of 2025; notice to sole respondent returnable by ten weeks; order by I/C Registrar (Judl-II) dated 01/04/2025; none present.

What did the court decide?

One final opportunity of two weeks to the applicant's advocate to supply the necessary copy; on failure the Interim Applications to stand dismissed against the sole respondent without further reference to the Court of Registrar; if the copy is supplied, notice to issue to the sole respondent returnable by ten weeks. ¶¶10

Maharashtra State Road Trasport Corporation Thr. the General Manager, Pune vs Chandrakant Sopan Koli — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the Interim Applications ought to be dismissed for non-prosecution for default in payment of process fees and failure to supply copies within the prescribed time under Chapter VII, Rule 2(iii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, or be given a further opportunity.

¶¶7

Court's answer

Under Chapter VII, Rule 2(iii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, the Registrar is to dismiss matters in which process fees have not been paid and/or copies have not been supplied within the prescribed time, for failure to prosecute.

¶¶7

Ratio / Principle

Though the prescribed time had expired and the earlier two weeks' time proved futile, the Registrar declined to pass an outright order of dismissal and held it just and proper to give one more opportunity to supply the necessary copy.

¶¶9

Key takeaways

The learned advocate for the applicant was directed to supply the necessary copy within 02 weeks without fail.ratio¶¶10
On failure to supply the copy within two weeks, the Interim Applications would stand dismissed against the sole respondent without further reference to the Court of Registrar.ratio¶¶10
If the copy is supplied, notice is to be issued to the sole respondent, returnable by ten weeks.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Side — order dated 01/04/2025 by Shri H.M. Bhosale, I/C. Registrar (Judl-II) in Interim Applications Nos. 1285 and 1286 of 2025 in First Appeal (Stamp) No. 2949 of 2025. The applications, listed a second time on the Registrar's Board for supply of copies, had lapsed the prescribed time and an earlier two-week indulgence, with the applicant's advocate taking no steps. Invoking Chapter VII, Rule 2(iii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (dismissal for non-prosecution where process fees are unpaid and/or copies unsupplied within the prescribed time), the Registrar granted one final opportunity of two weeks to supply the copy required for issuing notice to the sole respondent, directing that on failure the Interim Applications would stand dismissed against the sole respondent without further reference to the Court of Registrar; if the copy is supplied, notice is to issue to the sole respondent returnable by ten weeks. None was present.

¶1

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

¶2

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1285 OF 2025 ALONGWITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1286 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 2949 OF 2025

¶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 H.M. BHOSALE I/C. REGISTRAR (JUDL -II) DATE : 01/04/2025

¶5

None Present

¶6

The above numbered Interim Applications are 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 Applicant has not supplied copy for issuing Notice to sole respondent.

¶7

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.

¶8

As such, the prescribed time to supply copies,

¶9

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 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 more opportunity to supply the necessary copy.

¶10

In turn, the learned advocate for the applicant is directed to supply necessary copy within 02 weeks without fail. On failure, the Interim Applications would stand dismissed against sole respondent without further reference to the Court of Registrar. If copy supplied, issue notice to sole respondent, returnable by ten weeks.

¶11

Sd/I/C. REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

¶12

sat-R(J-II)-01.04.2025

Maharashtra State Road Trasport Corporation Thr. the General Manager, Pune v. Chandrakant Sopan Koli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra State Road Trasport Corporation Thr. the General Manager, Pune v. Chandrakant Sopan Koli

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

Divisional Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,Nashik vs Sau. Komal Rakesh Bhangale and Ors.

Prashant Ramchandra Digankar vs M/S. Siddhanath Tours and Travels Thr. Prop Mahadeo Dange and Anr.

Firoz Ayub Meman @ Papa vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Pune vs Suwarna Ishawar Thakur and Ors.

Tatyasaheb Bapu Kamble and Ors. vs Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai.

Maheswaran Thondappa Rajgopal vs Union of India and Anr.