Bombay High Court

M/S. SIDDHI VINAYAK ENTERPRISES AND OTHERSversusM/S. R.K.CONSTRO PROJECTS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: ARUN R PEDNEKER

Holding

The Court held that where the appellant does not cooperate, provides no instructions, and cannot be served notice, the appeal and related applications may be dismissed for non‑prosecution.

Summary

The High Court of Bombay noted that on March 13, 2024 the counsel for the appellants, M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Enterprises and others, informed the Court that he had no instructions in the matter. Subsequent attempts to serve notice on the appellants failed because the address of Appellant No. 1 was no longer existent and the addresses of Appellants Nos. 2 to 4 were incomplete. The appellants neither instructed counsel nor appeared before the Court. In view of this non‑cooperation and the inability to serve process, the Court exercised its inherent power to dismiss the arbitration appeal and the related civil applications. The dismissal was ordered on the ground of non‑prosecution of the suit.

Issues considered

Whether a court may dismiss an arbitration appeal and related civil applications for non‑prosecution when the appellant fails to give instructions to counsel and cannot be served notice.

Subjects

Arbitration
Dismissal
Non‑prosecution
Service of notice
Court procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:12447
                                                                             1007.odt




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        1007 ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2014

                        M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Enterprises And Others
                                          VERSUS
                        M/s. R.k.constro Projects Pvt. Ltd. And Others
                                              ***

                                             CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J
                                             DATE  : MARCH 24, 2026

          PC :

          1.           This Court noticed that on March 13, 2024 the learned

          Counsel for the Appellants submits that he has no instructions in the

          matter. Thereafter, Court issued notice to Appellants, returnable on

          10.04.2024. As per the bailiffs report, Court service notice to Appellant

          No. 1 returned unserved as Appellant No. 1 i.e. M/s. Siddhi Vinayak

          Enterprises has not found on given address and said building has been

          abolished. Even Court service notice of Appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are

          returned unserved as ‘incomplete address’ is provided.


          2.           Since the Appellants are not giving instructions to their

          Counsel and even not causing appearance, present Arbitration Appeals

          as well as Civil Applications are dismissed for non prosecution.



                                                        (ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.)
          usm




                                          PAGE 1 OF 1

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…