Bombay High Court

CHANDRAKANT NAMDEO DHALEversusLAXMIBAI CHANDRAKANT JADHAV AND ANR.

Decided: 6 October 2026
Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The appeal was dismissed for non‑prosecution.

Summary

The High Court of Bombay heard an appeal (First Appeal No.313 of 2006) filed by the original respondent (the insured) against an arbitral award dated 30 August 2005 that allowed the claim of the insurance company. The appellant's counsel, Shri M.A. Utgikar, had died and no representative appeared for the appellant; a bailiff report indicated the appellant was not residing at the given address. The court observed that the appellant appeared to have lost interest in prosecuting the appeal and consequently dismissed the appeal for non‑prosecution. The judgment noted that any application for restoration of the appeal would be considered on its merits. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate procedural consequence when an appellant fails to prosecute an appeal and has no legal representation?

Subjects

appeal
non‑prosecution
restoration of appeal
arbitral award
insurance claim
procedural law

Judgment

                                                                                  9-FA-313-2006.doc


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SATISH
RAMCHANDRA                              FIRST APPEAL NO.313 OF 2006
SANGAR
Digitally signed by
SATISH RAMCHANDRA
SANGAR
Date: 2026.10.07
                      Shri.Chandrakant Namdeo Dhale                           ...Appellant
19:13:59 +0530

                             V/s.
                      Sau Laxmibai Chandrakant Jadhav and Ors.                ...Respondents
                                                       *****

                      No one is present:-                     On behalf of the Appellant.
                      Mr.Devendranath S. Joshi:-              Advocate for Respondent No.3 –
                                                              New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

                                                   *****
                                              CORAM :             S. M. MODAK, J.
                                              DATE        :       6th OCTOBER 2026
                      P. C. :-

                      1.     Heard learned Advocate Shri.Joshi for Respondent No.3.

                      2.     The Tribunal as per the Award dated 30 th August 2005 has

                      allowed the Claim. This Appeal is by the Original Respondent No.1 –

                      Insured. A notice was issued to the Appellant because the learned

                      Advocate for the Appellant Shri.M.A.Utgikar has expired. There is

                      Bailiff Report that the Appellant is not residing at given address.

                      Probably, the Insurance Company must have deposited the amount.

                      3.     It seems that the Appellant has lost interest in prosecuting the

                      Appeal. Hence, it is dismissed for non–prosecution.
                      Satish Sangar                                                              1/2
                                                           9-FA-313-2006.doc


4.     If an Application is made for restoration, it will be considered on

merits.

                                     [S. M. MODAK, J.]




Satish Sangar                                                             2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

Devendranath S Joshi