Disposed¶8

Uttam Bhurmlal Jain v. Adecco India Private Limited

Bombay HC26 Mar 2025IA/7340/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Failure to prosecute; taking steps against unserved respondent; deemed dismissal without further reference; Chapter VII Rule 6(1)(e) Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960; Registrar (Judl.-II) power to dismiss for non-prosecution; process, process fees, printing charges, security for costs; fresh notice; postal and registration stamps; last/final opportunity; Interim Application No.7340 of 2024; Civil Revision Application (Stamp) No.7607 of 2024; Bombay High Court Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; order dated 26.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

One final opportunity of two weeks granted to take steps against unserved Respondent No.2 without fail; on failure, the Interim Application with the Civil Revision Application (Stamp) shall stand dismissed against unserved Respondent No.2 without further reference to the Registrar. ¶8

Uttam Bhurmlal Jain vs Adecco India Private Limited — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether, the prescribed time under the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 for taking steps against unserved Respondent No.2 having expired without any steps being taken, the Interim Application should be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Chapter VII Rule 6(1)(e), or whether one further opportunity should be granted.

¶7

Court's answer

The prescribed time to take steps against unserved Respondent No.2 as provided under the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 had expired; two weeks' time earlier granted proved fruitless and the matter lay without progress.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Although the situation engaged the dismissal-for-failure-to-prosecute mechanism, the Registrar considered it just and proper to grant one opportunity instead of passing an order of dismissal outright.

¶7

Key takeaways

Two weeks' time was granted with directions to take steps against unserved Respondent No.2 without fail.ratio¶8
On failure to take steps within the granted time, the Interim Application with the Civil Revision Application (Stamp) would stand dismissed against unserved Respondent No.2 without further reference to the court of the Registrar.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (S.R. Agrawal, Registrar Judl.-II), 26 March 2025 — Interim Application No.7340 of 2024 in Civil Revision Application (Stamp) No.7607 of 2024. The Applicant's advocate failed, despite two weeks' time already granted, to take steps against unserved Respondent No.2, engaging Chapter VII Rule 6(1)(e) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, under which the Registrar shall dismiss a matter for failure to prosecute once the prescribed period for issuing fresh notice or supplying postal stamps expires. Instead of dismissing outright, the Registrar granted one final opportunity of two weeks to take steps against unserved Respondent No.2, directing that on failure the Interim Application along with the Civil Revision Application (Stamp) shall stand dismissed against unserved Respondent No.2 without further reference to the Registrar.

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7340 OF 2024 IN

¶4

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION ST. NO.7607 OF 2024

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders	Court’s or Judge’s orders
CORAM :S.R. AGRAWAL REGISTRAR (JUDL.-II) DATE : 26^thMarch, 2025
Advocate Sanidhya Arora i/b King Stubb and Kasiva Present for Respondent No.1. The above numbered Interim Application
in Civil Revision Application (Stamp) is listed
on board of Registrar for second time. Already two weeks time has been granted,
however, despite granting two weeks time,
Advocate for the Applicant hasnot taken
any steps against unserved Respondent
No.2 .
Here reference to Chapter VII Rule 6 Sub
rule 1 and 2 of the Bombay High Court,
Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (for short
“Rules”) may be conveniently made. It
states about Processes, Process fees,
Printing Charges, Security for costs and
other procedure after admission etc.

¶6

In view of provisions under Chapter VII Rule 6(1) (e), immediately after the expiry of the period prescribed under the forgoing sub-rule of this rule for taking the requisite steps for the issue of fresh notice or for 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 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 prosecute.

¶7

As such, the prescribed time to take steps against unserved Respondent No.2 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 due to not taken any steps. However, instead of passing order of dismissal outrightly, it would be just and proper to give one opportunity to take steps against unserved Respondent No.2.

¶8

In turn, 02 (two) weeks time is granted with directions to take steps against unserved Respondent No.2 without fail. On failure, Interim Application with Civil Revision Application (Stamp) would stand

¶9

dismissed against	unserved Respondent
No.2 without further	reference to the court
of Registrar.
dsm	sd/- Registrar (Judl. - II)

Uttam Bhurmlal Jain v. Adecco India Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttam Bhurmlal Jain v. Adecco India Private Limited

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

Sachin Namdev Dhotre vs State of Maharashtra

1a Seema King vs Bhagwan Tuljaram Shahani and Ors.

Krishnabai Haresh Kewlany vs Hemant Amarchand Chhadva Partner M/S. Bright Enterprises and Ors.

Baban Dattatray Gholap vs Laxman Kondiba Gholap Deceased

Raju Subhas Koli vs Hari Vithoba Mali

Shri Raju Subhas Koli vs Shri Hari Vithoba Mali