Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

JAYASHRI VIJAYKUMAR TEKALEversusTHE VAIJINATH CO OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed in default for want of prosecution.

Summary

The petitioner, Jayashri Vijaykumar Tekale, filed a writ petition against Vaijinath Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. The petitioner failed to appear before the court on multiple occasions, including the scheduled hearing on 6 January 2026 and the adjourned hearing on the same day, as well as on 8 January 2026. Despite the court’s directions to appear, no representation was made on behalf of the petitioner. Consequently, the court listed the petition for dismissal in the urgent orders category. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed in default for want of prosecution.

Issues considered

  • What is the appropriate remedy when a petitioner fails to appear and prosecute a writ petition?

Subjects

  • default judgment
  • writ petition
  • want of prosecution
  • procedural default
  • court dismissal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:595
                                                  1                        909 WP 13295-2019.odt


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 909 WRIT PETITION NO. 13295 OF 2019

                              JAYASHRI VIJAYKUMAR TEKALE
                                        VERSUS
               THE VAIJINATH CO OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD THROUGH CHIEF
                                   EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                           …

                                       CORAM          : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                       DATE           : 08.01.2026

             PER COURT :
             1.       None appears for the petitioner.

             2.       On 06.01.2026, the following order was passed :

                    “1.     None appears for the petitioner.
                    2.      In fact, when this matter was called in the morning
                            session, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
                            Even on Court’s motion, when the matter was kept
                            back in the afternoon session to give one more
                            opportunity to the petitioner, none appeared on behalf
                            of the petitioner.
                    3.      List the petition on 08.01.2026, under the caption “For
                            Dismissal” in urgent orders category.”


             3.       Today also, none appears for the petitioner.

             4.       In view thereof, the Writ Petition stands dismissed in default for

             want of prosecution.


                                                         [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                                   JUDGE
             Pooja Kale/


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.