Bombay High Court
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIAversusMAFCO LIMITED AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
- Bench
- ARIF S DOCTOR
Holding
The court may set aside the dismissal order and restore the civil application, granting the plaintiff an additional four‑week period to effect service without prejudice to the respondent.
Summary
The Food Corporation of India (FCI) filed an interim application seeking to set aside an order dated 4 November 2019 that dismissed its civil application against Respondent No.2 for failure to serve notice within a four‑week period. FCI argued that the address of Respondent No.2 was unavailable and the service packet was returned unserved, warranting another opportunity to serve. The Court, after hearing counsel for both sides, held that restoring the civil application and granting an additional four‑week period would best serve substantial justice and would not prejudice Respondent No.2, whose rights would remain fully adjudicated. Accordingly, the interim application was allowed, the earlier dismissal order was recalled, and a fresh four‑week time‑frame for service was granted. The matter proceeds with the first appeal scheduled for 14 August 2026.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate remedy when a plaintiff fails to serve a respondent within the time prescribed by a court order?
Subjects
- service of process
- interim relief
- restoration of suit
- procedural law
- civil procedure
Judgment
24.2613.18-caf.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.17250 OF 2022
IN
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2613 OF 2018
IN
Digitally FIRST APPEAL ST NO.7474 OF 2018
signed by
BASAVRAJ
BASAVRAJ GURAPPA
GURAPPA PATIL
PATIL Date:
2026.07.20
Food Corporation of India .. Applicant/
11:37:24
+0530 Appellant
Vs.
MAFCO Ltd. & Anr. .. Respondents
...
Mr.Hafeezur Rahman for the Applicant
Mr. Akshay J. Kandarkar i/b. Rajesh S. Datar for Respondent
No.1
CORAM : ARIF S DOCTOR, J.
DATE : 17th JULY, 2026
P.C. :
The Civil Application seeks to set aside/recall the order dated 4 th
November 2019 by which the Registrar (Judicial-II) had granted the Applicant
four weeks’ time to serve Respondent No.2 failing which the Civil Application
would stand dismissed against Respondent No.2.
2. Heard Mr.Rahaman for the Applicant. He submits that since the address
of Respondent No.2 was unavailable service could not be completed. He points
out that the packet was returned unserved. He, thus, seeks a further opportunity
to serve Respondent No.2. For this purpose, Civil Application No.2613 of 2018
would have to be restored.
Basavraj Page | 1
24.2613.18-caf.docx
3. Having heard Mr. Kandarkar and having perused the Civil Application, in
my view, the substantial justice would best be served if the Civil Application is
accordingly restored and the Applicant is given one more opportunity to serve
Respondent No.2. No prejudice would be caused to Respondent No.2 since all
rights and contentions of Respondent No.2 will be kept open to be decided on
the merits of the Civil Application, if served.
4. Hence, the Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a)
which reads thus:
“(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass necessary order by setting
aside and/or recall the conditional order dated 4 th Nov. 2019 of dismissal
of above noted civil application against the Respondent No.2 and also
extend the time to take steps for service on the Respondent No.2 by
further four weeks”.
5. Post the First Appeal on board on 14th August 2026.
[ARIF S DOCTOR, J.]
Basavraj Page | 2
Checking your session…