V. Jaya Lakshmi And Anr vs P.R. Bafna And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 6426 Bom

                                                                           2.doc


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                               FIRST APPEAL NO.1693 OF 2013

 V. JAYA LAKSHMI AND ANOTHER                                )...APPELLANTS
          V/s.
 P. R. BAFNA AND OTHERS                                     )...RESPONDENTS

 Mr.Dinesh Tiwari a/w. Mr.Mikhail Dey and Pulkeshi Gaikwad i/b.
 Dinesh Tiwari and Associates, Advocate for the Appellants.
 Mr.P.Thakurdesai a/w. Ms.Poonam Mittal i/b. Ms.Shalini Shankar,
 Advocate for the Respondent No.3 - Insurance Company.

                                   CORAM      :    ABHAY AHUJA, J.

                                   DATE       :    6th JULY 2023

 P.C. :

1. This is a First Appeal listed at Serial No.2. Mr.Tiwari, learned

Counsel for the Appellants, submits that this is an Appeal of the year

2013 and was admitted on 13th June 2019. It is observed that all the

Respondents are served. Record and Proceedings have been received.

The private paper book is filed. However, none appears for the

Respondents. On the cause list there is an appearance shown for

Respondent no.3 of Advocate Ms.Shalini Shankar, who is not present.

2. Mr.Tiwari submits that the Appeal involves only two issues : one

pertaining to contributory negligence that has been levelled on the

avk 1/2

2.doc

deceased and the other relating to the quantum. Learned Counsel

submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is completely perverse as

it has improperly considered the evidence.

3. This Court requested Ms.Mittal to assist the Court on behalf of

the Insurance Company. However, she expressed her inability to do so

stating that the Vakalatnama is in the name of Ms.Shalini Shankar,

although she would try and take instructions.

4. This Court is in pains to record that on several occasions the

matters of the concerned Insurance Company are not attended to and

time is sought. This Court would have otherwise allowed the

adjournment application without any observations, however,

considering that this is an Appeal of 2013 and involves only two

narrow issues and when the matter is ready for final disposal, this type

of conduct only protracts the litigation, which is not appreciated.

5. Accordingly, list this matter on 20th July 2023.

6. It is made clear that if none appears for the Respondent no.3, this

Court will proceed to hear the matter and pass appropriate orders.

7. The learned Counsel are at liberty to circulate brief propositions

and supporting judgments in advance.

                                             (ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

 avk                                                                          2/2