Allowed¶26

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Mumbai Legal Hub v. Kavita Rajesh Parekha and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Mar 2025IA/1974/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court interim order, Chandak J., 3-Mar-2025; New India Assurance delay condonation of 152 days and restoration of IA 8752/2024 (dismissed for want of compliance) in First Appeal (ST) 14272/2024; substituted service by paper publication on unnamed respondent No. 5 whose notice returned “Not found”; both IA 1973/2025 and IA 1974/2025 allowed; notice returnable 15-Apr-2025; leave to amend prayer clause granted.

What did the court decide?

Delay condonation granted and IA No. 8752 of 2024 restored via allowance of IA No. 1973 of 2025; service of respondent No. 5 by paper publication permitted in terms of prayer clause (a) of IA No. 1974 of 2025; notice to respondent No. 5 made returnable on 15th April, 2025. ¶26

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Mumbai Legal Hub vs Kavita Rajesh Parekha and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the 152-day delay in filing the application for restoration of Interim Application No. 8752 of 2024 should be condoned. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

IA No. 1973 of 2025 allowed; per the operative order, the delay condonation application stands restored with immediate effect (effecting restoration of IA No. 8752 of 2024, which the application sought to restore).

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Leave granted to amend the prayer clause in IA No. 1973 of 2025; amendment to be carried out forthwith.

¶13

Key takeaways

IA No. 1974 of 2025 allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), permitting service of respondent No. 5 by paper publication.ratio¶31
Notice to respondent No. 5 made returnable on 15th April, 2025.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Shyam C. Chandak, J.), order dated 3 March 2025, in Interim Application Nos. 1973 and 1974 of 2025 in Interim Application No. 8752 of 2024 in First Appeal (ST) No. 14272 of 2024: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (shown as Appellant in the first appeal and Applicant in the interim applications) sought (i) condonation of a 152-day delay and restoration of IA No. 8752 of 2024, which had been dismissed for want of compliance, explaining that the court notice to respondent No. 5 had returned unserved with the remark “Not found” and the applicant could not trace the respondent despite the packet bearing his true, correct and last known address (counsel submitted the delay was not deliberate and no advantage was gained); and (ii) leave to serve respondent No. 5 by paper publication. The Court granted leave to amend the prayer clause (amendment to be carried out forthwith), allowed IA No. 1973 of 2025 with the direction that the delay condonation application stands restored with immediate effect, and allowed IA No. 1974 of 2025 in terms of prayer clause (a), making notice to respondent No. 5 returnable on 15th April, 2025. Mrs. S.S. Dwivedi appeared for the applicant; Mr. Sumit Choudhary i/b Akshay Deshmukh appeared for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and waived notice. Respondent No. 5 is not named in the text. No statutes or precedent cases are cited.

¶1

Rekha Patil

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1973 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1974 OF 2025 IN INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8752 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 14272 OF 2024

¶4

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...Applicant

¶5

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶6

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant vs. Kavita Rajesh Parekh and Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mrs. S.S. Dwivedi, for the Applicant in Interim Application Nos. 1973 of 2025 and 1974 of 2025 in First Appeal (ST) No. 14272 of 2024.

¶8

Mr.Sumit Choudhary i/b Akshay Deshmukh, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in Interim Application Nos. 1973 of 2025 and 1974 of 2025.

¶9

CORAM : SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.

¶10

DATED : 3^rd March, 2025.

¶11

P. C. : INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1973 OF 2025

¶12

Learned Counsel for the applicant, at the outset, seeks leave to

¶13

amend the prayer clause. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

¶14

Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA PRAKASH PRAKASH PATIL PATIL Date: 2025.03.03 18:59:54 +0530

1/4

Rekha Patil

24-IA-1973-2025.doc

1. Learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 waives notice.

¶19

1. Perused the application.

¶20

1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶21

1. The present application is seeking restoration of Interim Application No. 8752 of 2024 in First Appeal (st.) No. 14272 of 2024, which came to be dismissed for want of compliance. There is delay of 152 days in filing this Application.

¶22

Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant wanted to take steps against the respondent No.5, as the summons returned unserved with bailiff’s remark “Not found”. She submitted that the address transcribed on the packets containing the said notice was true, correct and last known address of the respondent No.5. She submitted that the applicant tried its best to trace the whereabouts of the said respondent No.5 but could not get it. Hence, there was a delay in searching the whereabouts of respondent No.5. The said delay of 152 days is not deliberate. The

¶23

2/4

¶24

Rekha Patil 24-IA-1973-2025.doc

¶25

applicant has not gained any advantage on account of said delay.

¶26

1. In view thereof, this application is allowed. The delay condonation application stands restored with immediate effect.

¶27

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1974 OF 2025

¶28

1. The present application is seeking to serve the respondent No. 5 in IA No. 8752 of 2024, by way of paper publication.

¶29

1. As stated in the application, the court notice issued to said respondent No.5 in IA No. 8752 of 2024 returned unserved with the remark “Not found”.

¶30

1. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the address transcribed on the packets containing said notice to respondent No.5 is the true and correct address and the last known address of the respondent No.5. The applicant tried to trace out the whereabouts of the respondent No.5, but could not get his whereabouts.

¶31