Disposed¶11

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Regional Manager v. Anil Sadashiv Bargaje and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Feb 2025IA/15995/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court Registrar order 24/04/2025; IA 15994 & 15995 of 2024 in First Appeal (Stamp) 31114 of 2024; service of notices on respondent Nos. 1-4 returned unserved; failure to prosecute; Chapter VII Rule 6(1)(e) Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960; last opportunity of 02 weeks; conditional dismissal without further reference to Registrar.

What did the court decide?

One final opportunity of 02 weeks granted to the applicant's advocate to take steps for service of notices upon unserved respondent Nos. 1 to 4; on default, the Interim Applications to stand dismissed against those respondents without further reference to the Registrar. ¶11

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Regional Manager vs Anil Sadashiv Bargaje and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the Interim Applications ought to be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the prescribed time for taking steps for service of notices upon unserved respondent Nos. 1 to 4 having expired without any steps taken.

¶10

Court's answer

Although the prescribed time for taking steps for service of notices upon unserved respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had expired and the matter lay idle, the Registrar held that instead of passing an order of dismissal outright, it would be just and proper to give one more opportunity to take such steps.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Learned advocate for the applicant was directed to take appropriate steps for service of notices upon unserved respondent Nos. 1 to 4 within 02 weeks without fail.

¶11

Key takeaways

On failure to take the directed steps within 02 weeks, the Interim Applications would stand dismissed against unserved respondent Nos. 1 to 4 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Order of Registrar (Judl-II), Shri S. R. Agrawal, dated 24/04/2025) — Interim Application Nos. 15994 and 15995 of 2024 in First Appeal (Stamp) No. 31114 of 2024. Notices to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 returned unserved; the applicant's advocate took no steps nor supplied correct addresses despite 02 weeks granted. Invoking Chapter VII, Rule 6(1)(e), Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (under which the Registrar may dismiss matters for failure to prosecute), the Registrar declined to dismiss outright and granted one more opportunity: steps for service to be taken within 02 weeks, failing which the Interim Applications would stand dismissed against unserved respondent Nos. 1 to 4 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

¶1

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

¶2

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 15994 OF 2024 ALONGWITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 15995 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 31114 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 : 24/04/2025

¶6

None Present

¶7

The notices of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are returned unserved. Therefore, the above numbered Interim Applications are listed on the board of registrar for second time for taking steps for service of notices upon unserved respondent Nos. 1 to 4. However, learned advocate for applicant has neither taken any steps nor supplied proper and correct addresses of respondent Nos. 1 to 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

¶9

been supplied within the prescribed time, and the 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 to 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 notices upon unserved respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶11

In turn, learned advocate for the applicant is directed to take appropriate steps for service of notices upon unserved respondent Nos. 1 to 4 within 02 weeks without fail. On failure, Interim Applications would stand dismissed against unserved respondent Nos. 1 to 4 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

¶12

Sd/REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

¶13

sat-R(J-II)-24.04.2025

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Regional Manager v. Anil Sadashiv Bargaje and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Regional Manager v. Anil Sadashiv Bargaje 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

Pidilite Industries Limited, Thr. Its. Atho. Representative Shri. Asheesh Gupta vs M/S Ezzy Hardware, Thr. Its Prop. Shri. Khuzema Rasoolbhai Hakimi

The General Manager, Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Corporation vs Sabra Nesha Ainul Ansari and Ors.

The Manager,Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. Mumbai vs Salim Ahmed Shaikh and Anr.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Mumbai vs Smt. Jyoti Dilip Helekar

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Regional Manager vs Anil Sadashiv Bargaje and Ors.

Ashpak Basha Makandar and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra