Mr. Pandurang S/O Raghunath Patil vs Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd.,Mumbai Thr. Chief General Manager / North — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mr. Pandurang S/O Raghunath Patil vs Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd.,Mumbai Thr. Chief General Manager / North — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

One further opportunity of two weeks granted to the appellant's advocate to supply the necessary copies; on failure, the Interim Application to stand dismissed against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 without further reference to the Court of Registrar; if copies are supplied, notices to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to issue, returnable by ten weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Interim Application should be dismissed for non-prosecution on account of default in payment of process fees and failure to supply copies within the prescribed time under Chapter VII, Rule 2(iii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, or whether a further opportunity should be given to supply the copies.

Court's answer

Instead of passing an order of dismissal outrightly for failure to supply copies, the Registrar considered it just and proper to give one more opportunity to supply the necessary copies.

Ratio / Principle

The learned advocate for the appellant is directed to supply the necessary copies within 02 weeks without fail.

Key takeaways

On failure to supply the copies within two weeks, the Interim Application will stand dismissed against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 without further reference to the Court of Registrar; if copies are supplied, notices are to be issued to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, returnable by ten weeks.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Registrar Judl-II, Shri S.R. Agrawal), order dated 25/08/2025 in Interim Application No. 8236 of 2025 in Arbitration Appeal (Stamp) No. 19141 of 2021. The Advocate for the Appellant failed, despite two weeks' time already granted, to supply copies required for issuing notices to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Invoking Chapter VII, Rule 2(iii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (dismissal for non-prosecution on default in payment of process fees and/or failure to supply copies within prescribed time), the Registrar declined to dismiss the Interim Application outrightly and gave one more opportunity: the appellant's advocate was directed to supply the necessary copies within 02 weeks without fail, failing which the Interim Application would stand dismissed against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 without further reference to the Court of Registrar; if copies were supplied, notices were to issue to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, returnable by ten weeks.

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

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8236 OF 2025 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 19141 OF 2021

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s order appearance, Court’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders

CORAM : SHRI. S.R. AGRAWAL REGISTRAR (JUDL -II)

DATE : 25/08/2025

None Present

The above numbered Interim Application is listed for second time on the Board of Registrar for supplying copies. Already two weeks time was granted. However, despite of granting two weeks time, the Advocate for the Appellant has not supplied copies for issuing Notices to respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

In view of provisions under Chapter VII, Rule 2 (iii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 matters to be dismissed for non-prosecution in case of default of payment of process fess and failure to supply copies – Immediately after the expiry of the time prescribed in the foregoing sub-rules of this rule for the supply of copies, the Office shall place before the Registrar all such matters in which the process fees have not been paid and/or the copies have not been supplied within the prescribed time, and the Registrar shall dismiss all such matters for failure to prosecute.

As such, the prescribed time to supply copies, 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 as learned Advocate for the Appellant has not taken any steps. However, instead of passing order of dismissal outrightly, it would be just and proper to give one more opportunity to supply the necessary copies.

In turn, the learned advocate for the appellant is directed to supply necessary copies within 02 weeks without fail. On failure, the Interim Application would stand dismissed against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 without further reference to the Court of Registrar. If copies supplied, issue notices to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, returnable by ten weeks.

Sd/-

REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

sat-R(J-II)-25.08.2025