Bombay High Court
SANJAY VAGHJI RATHODversusGOVERNMENT OF INDIA THR.SECRETARY, NEW DELHI AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court restored the dismissed interim application, allowing the proceedings to continue.
Summary
The applicant, Sanjay Vaghji Rathod, filed an interim application seeking restoration of an earlier interim application (No. 1501 of 2025) that had been dismissed for want of prosecution on 13 August 2026. The respondent, Government of India, opposed the restoration. The court examined the memorandum filed by the applicant and considered the principle of interest of justice. It held that the proceedings should be restored to the court's file. Consequently, the interim application was allowed as per the prayer clause (a), and the matter was disposed of without any costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the dismissal of Interim Application No. 1501 of 2025 for want of prosecution can be set aside and the proceedings restored.
Subjects
- interim application
- restoration
- want of prosecution
- interest of justice
- civil appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
3-IA-6873-2026.DOC
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:
2026.09.18
16:55:51
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6873 OF 2026
IN
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1501 OF 2025
IN
COMMERCIAL FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 25810 OF 2024
IN
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 100413 OF 2020
Sanjay Vaghji Rathod ...Applicant/Appellant
Versus
Government of India
Thr. Secretary, New Delhi & Ors ...Respondents
_______
Mr N D Jaywant for Applicant/Appellant.
Mr Anjani Kumar Singh, for Respondent No.1.
Mr Priyank Shukla, i/b Asutosh Shukla, for Respondent No.2.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 17 SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.
1. By this Interim Application, the Applicant/Appellant has prayed for
restoration of Interim Application No. 1501 of 2025, which came to be dismissed
for want of prosecution by an order dated 13th August 2026.
2. Mr Anjani Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1, has
opposed the Interim Application.
3. However, considering the averments as made in the memo of the
application, we are of the opinion that it is in the interest of justice that the
Page 1 of 2
Shivgan
3-IA-6873-2026.DOC
proceedings are restored to the file of this Court. Accordingly, the Interim
Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
4. Disposed of. No costs.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Shivgan
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.