Dismissed¶19

Mr. George Lawrence Godinho v. the State Oif Maharashtra Thr. Government Pleader and Others

Bombay HC27 Jan 2026AO/323/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

George Lawrence Godinho & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.; Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; Appeal From Order No. 323 of 2024 with Interim Application No. 7848 of 2024; dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution; non-payment of costs imposed by order dated 22nd December 2025; appellants unrepresented at hearing; interim application disposed of; interim and ad-interim orders vacated forthwith; coram: Farhan P. Dubash, J.; decided 5 March 2026.

What did the court decide?

The Appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution, the Appellants having failed to pay the costs imposed by order dated 22nd December 2025 despite a last opportunity, and none appearing for them at the hearing. ¶19

Mr. George Lawrence Godinho vs the State Oif Maharashtra Thr. Government Pleader and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

6/AO/323/2024 George Godinho Vs. State of Maharashtra

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 323 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7848 OF 2024 IN

¶4

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 323 OF 2024

¶5

Mr. George Lawrence Godinho & Ors. … Appellants V/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader & Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Ms. Shilpa G. Talwar , AGP, for the Respondent nos. 1 & 3.

¶8

Mr. Kaustubh Patil , with Dixit Partners for the Respondent no. 2.

¶9

CORAM : FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.

¶10

DATE : 5^th MARCH 2026

¶11

P. C.:

¶12

AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV

¶13

Digitally signed by AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV Date: 2026.03.07 13:13:42 +0530

¶14

As more particularly recorded in the order dated 17^th February 2026 passed by this Court, the costs imposed by order dated 22^nd December 2025 have not yet been paid by the Appellants to the Respondents. Accordingly, the matter was placed today under the caption “For Dismissal”, giving the Appellants one last opportunity to comply with order dated 22^nd December 2025. The Appellants were put to further notice that if compliance was not done by them and/or they remained unrepresented at today’s hearing, this Court would proceed with the matter for want of prosecution.

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

------------------------------------Order dated 5^th March 2026

¶17

6/AO/323/2024 George Godinho Vs. State of Maharashtra

¶18

Despite this indulgence, none appears for the Appellants today. Mr. Kaustubh Patil, learned Counsel who appears on behalf of Respondent no. 2, further states that the Appellants have not complied with the order dated 22^nd December 2025 and have not paid the costs that were imposed by this Court.

¶19

Considering this, this Court is constrained to dismiss this Appeal for want of prosecution. Interim Application will not survive and is accordingly disposed of. All interim or ad-interim orders, if any, stand vacated forthwith.

¶20

( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. )

¶21

Amol

¶22

Page 2 of 2

¶23

------------------------------------Order dated 5^th March 2026

Mr. George Lawrence Godinho v. the State Oif Maharashtra Thr. Government Pleader and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. George Lawrence Godinho v. the State Oif Maharashtra Thr. Government Pleader and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shaila Shailesh More vs Deputy Registrar Co-Op. Soc. (on Depautation Societies Federation Ltd.

A H Wadia Charity Trust Bombay vs Special Land Acquisition Officer -3 Office of the Collector

Kashinath Pundlik Keni Patil Vs Bai Sainath Bhoir

Shehzad Adil Nensey vs Kishwar Adil Nensey and 5 Ors.

Harshad Chandrashekhar Kurve vs Grievance Redressal Committee, Mummbai Suburban

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Another vs Mr. Nasir Jamal Shaikh and Others