Dismissed¶74

Project Dierector the National Highway Authority of India Project Implementation Unit Dhule v. Yuvraj Avchit Mali (Deceased) and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jun 2026CA/8214/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal for want of prosecution of NHAI arbitration appeals and connected civil applications (Aurangabad Bench, 08.06.2026, Abhay J. Mantri J.); abatement of appeals/applications against respondents who died during pendency for failure to bring legal heirs on record despite orders dated 09.01.2024, 12.04.2024, 21.06.2024 and 19.07.2024; repeated non-appearance of appellants on 16.04.2026, 24.04.2026, 04.05.2026 and 08.06.2026; no statutes or precedents cited; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

All the pending Civil Applications and Arbitration Appeals are dismissed for want of prosecution, no one having appeared for the Applicants/Appellants despite repeated calls, extended time and a last opportunity. ¶74

Project Dierector the National Highway Authority of India Project Implementation Unit Dhule vs Yuvraj Avchit Mali (Deceased) and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶74

Issue for consideration

Whether the pending Arbitration Appeals and Civil Applications should be dismissed for want of prosecution, given the Applicants'/Appellants' repeated non-appearance and failure to prosecute despite successive opportunities. +1 more

¶74

Court's answer

¶74

Ratio / Principle

In view of the Court's order dated 19.07.2024, the Applications and Appeals stood abated against the concerned Respondents who died during the pendency of the Appeals/Applications, no steps having been taken to bring their legal heirs on record within the stipulated period.

¶71

Key takeaways

The Court observed that the Applicants/Appellants appear not interested in prosecuting the Applications/Appeals.obiter¶73

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Abhay J. Mantri, J., 08 June 2026: Ten Arbitration Appeals (Nos. 18 to 27 of 2019) by the Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit, Nashik, against Rajendra Walchand Shinde and Another, together with numerous connected Civil Applications of 2020 and 2024, dismissed for want of prosecution. Earlier orders dated 09.01.2024, 12.04.2024 and 21.06.2024 had repeatedly granted time to substitute the legal heirs of Respondents who died during pendency, with a warning that failure would result in dismissal against the concerned Respondents; the order dated 19.07.2024 categorically directed that if steps were not taken within three weeks, the Appeals/Applications 'shall stand abated and disposed of against those Respondents without further reference to the Court'. No steps were taken, and the matters accordingly stood abated against the deceased Respondents. After further total non-appearance on 16.04.2026, 24.04.2026 and 04.05.2026 (last opportunity, dismissal category), and again on the second call on 08.06.2026 in both the morning and afternoon sessions, the Court observed that the Applicants/Appellants seemed not interested in prosecuting the matters and dismissed all Applications and Appeals for want of prosecution. No counsel appeared for the Applicants/Appellants; Mr. Vijay B. Patil and Mr. V.P. Raje appeared for the respective Respondents. No statute or precedent is cited in the judgment.

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:22311

¶2

1 1.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2019 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4474 OF 2020 IN ARBA/20/2019 WITH

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 964 OF 2020 IN ARBAST/38353/2019 WITH

¶6

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 963 OF 2020 IN ARBAST/38365/2019 WITH

¶7

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 960 OF 2020 IN ARBAST/38385/2019 WITH

¶8

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3521 OF 2020 IN ARBAST/38394/2019 WITH

¶9

ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 22 OF 2019 WITH

¶10

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4475 OF 2020 IN ARBA/21/2019 WITH

¶11

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 951 OF 2020 IN ARBAST/38404/2019 WITH

¶12

ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2019 WITH

¶13

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3514 OF 2020 IN ARBAST/38407/2019 WITH

¶14

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4479 OF 2020 IN ARBA/24/2019 WITH

¶15

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 956 OF 2020

¶16

2 1.odt

¶17

IN ARBAST/38375/2019 WITH

¶18

ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 20 OF 2019 WITH

¶19

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4473 OF 2020 IN ARBA/19/2019 WITH

¶20

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4472 OF 2020 IN ARBA/18/2019 WITH

¶21

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8210 OF 2024 IN CA/3531/2020 WITH

¶22

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3520 OF 2020 IN ARBAST/38360/2019 WITH

¶23

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8215 OF 2024 IN CA/3519/2020 WITH

¶24

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8212 OF 2024 IN CA/3522/2020 WITH

¶25

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 955 OF 2020 IN ARBAST/38343/2019 WITH

¶26

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4480 OF 2020 IN ARBA/25/2019 WITH

¶27

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3531 OF 2020 IN ARBAST/38375/2019 WITH

¶28

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3516 OF 2020 IN ARBAST/38404/2019 WITH

¶29

ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2019 WITH

¶30

3 1.odt

¶31

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4477 OF 2020 IN ARBA/22/2019 WITH

¶32

ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2019 WITH

¶33

ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2019 WITH

¶34

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3523 OF 2020 IN ARBAST/38365/2019 WITH

¶35

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3518 OF 2020 IN ARBAST/38343/2019 WITH

¶36

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3529 OF 2020 IN ARBAST/38391/2019 WITH

¶37

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3530 OF 2020 IN ARBAST/38370/2019 WITH

¶38

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 962 OF 2020 IN ARBAST/38394/2019 WITH

¶39

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 958 OF 2020 IN ARBAST/38370/2019 WITH

¶40

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3532 OF 2020 IN ARBAST/38399/2019 WITH

¶41

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4476 OF 2020 IN ARBA/26/2019 WITH

¶42

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4478 OF 2020 IN ARBA/23/2019 WITH

¶43

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3534 OF 2020 IN ARBAST/38385/2019

¶44

4 1.odt

¶45

WITH ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2019 WITH

¶46

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3522 OF 2020 IN ARBAST/38353/2019 WITH

¶47

ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2019 WITH

¶48

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3519 OF 2020 IN ARBAST/38380/2019 WITH

¶49

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8214 OF 2024 IN CA/3522/2020 WITH

¶50

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 953 OF 2020 IN ARBAST/38399/2019 WITH

¶51

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 961 OF 2020 IN ARBAST/38407/2019

¶52

WITH

¶53

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4481 OF 2020 IN ARBA/27/2019 WITH

¶54

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 965 OF 2020 IN ARBAST/38360/2019 WITH

¶55

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 959 OF 2020 IN ARBAST/38391/2019 WITH

¶56

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 954 OF 2020 IN ARBAST/38380/2019 WITH

¶57

ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2019

¶58

PROJECT DIRECTOR, THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, NASHIK

¶59

VERSUS

¶60

5 1.odt

¶61

RAJENDRA WALCHAND SHINDE AND ANOTHER

¶62

Advocate for respective Respondents : Mr. Vijay B. Patil and Mr. V.P. Raje …

¶63

CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. DATE : 08^TH JUNE, 2026

¶64

PER COURT :

¶65

On the second call, none appeared for the

¶66

Applicants/Appellants when the matters were/are called out. Perused the record.

¶67

It appears from the order dated 09.01.2024, that the learned

¶68

Advocate for the Applicants/Appellants submitted that some of the Respondent/s had expired and he would take the necessary steps to bring their legal heirs on record. Accordingly, time was granted till 06.02.2024. Then again, by order dated 12.04.2024, Appellant sought time to bring the legal heirs of the deceased Respondent/s on record, and time was granted. On 21.06.2024, the Applicant/s / Appellant/s again sought time to take steps to bring the legal heirs of the deceased Respondent/s on record. While passing the said order, it was clarified that if no steps are taken within four weeks, the Application/s and Appeal/s stand dismissed against the concerned Respondents. On 19.07.2024, this Court referred the order dated 21.06.2024 and whereby categorically directed the

¶69

6 1.odt

¶70

Applicant/s and Appellant/s “ to take the steps, and if they fail to take steps within three weeks, then the Appeal/s or Application/s shall stand abated and disposed of against those Respondents without further reference to the Court .” Despite the above orders and grant of an opportunity, no steps were taken by the Applicant/s Appellant/s in those concerned matters within the stipulated period.

¶71

Thus, in fact, in view of the order dated 19.07.2024, the Application/s and Appeal/s are stood abated against the concerned Respondent/s who died during the pendency of the Appeal/s or Application/s. However, the Application/s and Appeal/s are still pending, and the time has been extended from time to time. On 16.04.2026, no one was present for the Applicant/s or Appellant/s when the matters were called out twice and, therefore, the matters were adjourned to 24.04.2026. On 24.04.2026, again no one appeared for the Applicant/s or Appellant/s despite the matters being called twice. Therefore, the matters were listed for dismissal order on 04.05.2026. On 04.05.2026, again by way of last opportunity, matters were adjourned to 08.06.2026, in the dismissal category.

¶72

Despite the above orders, today no one appeared on behalf of the Applicant/s or Appellant/s when the matters were/are called out in the morning and afternoon sessions. It seems that the Applicant/s or

¶73

7 1.odt

¶74

Appellant/s are not interested in prosecuting the Applications/Appeals. In view of the above, all Application/s and Appeal/s are dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶75

( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. )

¶76

SPC

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Order dated 09.01.2024: learned Advocate for the Applicants/Appellants submitted that some Respondents had expired and he would take necessary steps to bring their legal heirs on record; accordingly, time was granted till 06.02.2024.¶68
Prior proceeding
Order dated 12.04.2024: Appellant again sought time to bring the legal heirs of the deceased Respondents on record, and time was granted.¶68
Prior proceeding
Order dated 21.06.2024: Applicants/Appellants again sought time to take steps to bring the legal heirs of the deceased Respondents on record.¶68
Prior proceeding
In the order dated 21.06.2024 the Court clarified that if no steps were taken within four weeks, the Applications/Appeals would stand dismissed against the concerned Respondents.¶68
Prior proceeding
Order dated 19.07.2024: the Court referred to its order dated 21.06.2024 and categorically directed the Applicants/Appellants to take the steps.¶68
Prior proceeding
Direction contained in the order dated 19.07.2024: if the Applicants/Appellants failed to take steps within three weeks, the Appeals/Applications would stand abated and disposed of against those Respondents without further reference to the Court.¶70
Prior proceeding
Despite the above orders and the grant of opportunity, no steps were taken by the Applicants/Appellants in the concerned matters within the stipulated period.¶70
Prior proceeding
Consequently, in view of the order dated 19.07.2024, the Applications/Appeals stood abated against the concerned Respondents who died during the pendency of the Appeals/Applications.¶71
Prior proceeding
16.04.2026: no one was present for the Applicants/Appellants when the matters were called out twice; matters adjourned to 24.04.2026.¶71
Prior proceeding
24.04.2026: again no one appeared despite the matters being called twice; matters listed for dismissal order on 04.05.2026.¶71
Prior proceeding
04.05.2026: by way of last opportunity, matters adjourned to 08.06.2026 in the dismissal category.¶71
Prior proceeding
08.06.2026 (decision date): despite the above orders, no one appeared on behalf of the Applicants/Appellants when the matters were called out in the morning and afternoon sessions.¶72

Project Dierector the National Highway Authority of India Project Implementation Unit Dhule v. Yuvraj Avchit Mali (Deceased) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Project Dierector the National Highway Authority of India Project Implementation Unit Dhule v. Yuvraj Avchit Mali (Deceased) and Ors.

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

Nanasaheb Ramdas Katre vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vikas Baban Aher vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Appasaheb Vinayakrao Hiwale vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Virbhadra Bhujangrao Swami vs Manik Vitthalrao Kathmande and Another

Project Dierector the National Highway Authority of India, Dhule vs Sadashiv Shankar Mali (Deceased) and Another

Dhondiba Kisan Binnar and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another