Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai v. Ishwari Vijay Kenjale and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Jun 2025IA/13770/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Service of notice on unserved respondents; notices returned unserved; failure to prosecute; dismissal for default; last/final opportunity; Chapter VII Rule 6(1)(e) Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960; Registrar (Judl-II); Interim Application in First Appeal; procedural order; no case law cited; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

One final opportunity of 02 weeks granted to the learned advocate for the applicant to take steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 5; on default, the Interim Application is to stand dismissed against those respondents without further reference to the Court of Registrar. ¶¶11

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai vs Ishwari Vijay Kenjale and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the Interim Application should be dismissed for failure to prosecute, given that the prescribed time for taking steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 has expired.

¶¶10

Court's answer

Instead of passing an order of dismissal outright, the Registrar considered it just and proper to give one more opportunity to take steps for service of notices upon unserved respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 5.

¶¶10

Ratio / Principle

The learned advocate for the applicant was directed to take appropriate steps for service of notices upon unserved respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 within 02 weeks without fail.

¶¶11

Key takeaways

On failure to take the directed steps within 02 weeks, the Interim Application would stand dismissed against unserved respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.ratio¶¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Registrar Judl-II, Shri S. R. Agrawal), order dated 25/06/2025 in Interim Application No. 13770 of 2024 in First Appeal No. 1672 of 2024: Notices to respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 stood returned unserved, and the prescribed period under Chapter VII, Rule 6 (1) (e) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, for taking steps for issue of fresh notice had expired, an earlier grant of two weeks having gone unused. Declining to dismiss the matter outright for failure to prosecute, the Registrar granted one last opportunity of two weeks to the appellant's advocate to take steps for service of notice; failing which the Interim Application is to stand dismissed against unserved respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 without further reference to the Court of Registrar. Purely procedural order; no substantive issue decided.

¶1

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

¶2

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13770 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1672 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 : 25/06/2025

¶6

None Present

¶7

The notices of respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 are 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 Nos. 1 and 3 to 5. However, learned advocate for appellant has neither taken any steps nor supplied proper and correct addresses of respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 5.

¶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

¶9

Registrar shall dismiss the matter for failure to prosecute.:

¶10

As such, the prescribed time to take steps for service of notices upon unserved respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 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 notices upon unserved respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 5.

¶11

In turn, learned advocate for the applicant is directed to take appropriate steps for service of notices upon unserved respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 within 02 weeks without fail. On failure, Interim Application would stand dismissed against unserved respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

¶12

Sd/REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

¶13

sat-R(J-II)-25.06.2025

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai v. Ishwari Vijay Kenjale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai v. Ishwari Vijay Kenjale 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

Mr. Kaluram B. Gore (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. Manisha Kaluram Gore vs Mr. Sanjay Baban Misal and Anr.

Mohsin Dost Mohd Khan vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Mumbai

Mr. Arif Akbar Pathan and Anr. vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai

Adil Imtiaz Vohra vs the State of Maharashtra

Sohil Jahangir Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra

Abdul Gafur Mohammad Hanif Narpali vs State of Maharashtra