Disposed¶11

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Mumbai v. Sachin Ramchandra Ballal and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Feb 2025IA/14993/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Registrar order, Bombay High Court; Interim Application 14993/2024 in First Appeal 1844/2024; unserved respondent No. 3; failure to take steps for service of notice; Chapter VII Rule 6(1)(e) Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960; dismissal for failure to prosecute; last opportunity granted; deemed dismissal without further reference to Registrar; awaiting service on respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

What did the court decide?

One further opportunity of 02 weeks granted to the applicant's advocate to take steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 3; failing which the Interim Application shall stand dismissed against respondent No. 3 without further reference to the Registrar; service of notices upon respondent Nos. 1 and 2 awaited for 02 weeks. ¶11

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Mumbai vs Sachin Ramchandra Ballal 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, the prescribed time under Chapter VII, Rule 6(1)(e) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 having expired without steps being taken for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 3.

¶10

Court's answer

The prescribed time for taking steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 3 has expired; two weeks earlier granted yielded no steps.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Instead of dismissing the Interim Application outright for failure to prosecute, it is just and proper to grant one more opportunity to take steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 3.

¶10

Key takeaways

The learned advocate for the applicant is directed to take appropriate steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 3 within 02 weeks; on failure, the Interim Application will stand dismissed against unserved respondent No. 3 without further reference to the Registrar.ratio¶11
Service of notices upon respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is awaited for 02 weeks.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Registrar (Judicial-II), order dated 18/02/2025 in Interim Application No. 14993 of 2024 in First Appeal No. 1844 of 2024: notice to respondent No. 3 was returned unserved and the applicant's advocate failed to take service steps within the prescribed two weeks despite a prior extension. Invoking Chapter VII, Rule 6(1)(e) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (dismissal for failure to prosecute), the Registrar declined to dismiss outright and granted one final opportunity of 02 weeks to take steps for service; on default, the Interim Application shall stand dismissed against unserved respondent No. 3 without further reference to the Registrar. Service of notices upon respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was awaited for 02 weeks.

¶1

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

¶2

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 14993 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1844 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 : 18/02/2025

¶6

None Present

¶7

The notice of respondent No. 3 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. 3. However, learned advocate for applicant has neither taken any steps nor supplied proper and correct address of respondent No. 3.

¶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

¶9

prosecute.:

¶10

As such, the prescribed time to take steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 3 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. 3.

¶11

In turn, learned advocate for the applicant is directed to take appropriate steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 3 within 02 weeks without fail. On failure, Interim Application would stand dismissed against unserved respondent No. 3 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

¶12

Await service of notices of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for 02 weeks.

¶13

Sd/-

¶14

REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

¶15

sat-R(J-II)-18.02.2025

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Mumbai v. Sachin Ramchandra Ballal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Mumbai v. Sachin Ramchandra Ballal 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

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Heramb Rajendra Sonawane vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

National Insurance Company Limited Thr. Mumbai Regional Office, Mumbai vs Vishwanath Sitaram Patil and Ors.

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through the General Manager vs Shri. Surendra Digambar Kolate

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Mumbai vs Gorakhnath Bhikaji Borhade and Ors.

Jalinder Babaji Ware vs State of Maharashtra

Ajmat Rajjab Khan and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra