[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... vs M/S. Ashoka Highway Ad, Mumbai And Ors. on 11 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:12043
HMK 1 24. FAST-10686-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30056 OF 2022
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 10686 OF 2021
Digitally
SAYYED signed by
SAEED SAYYED
ALI
SAEED ALI
AHMED ALI ALONG WITH
AHMED Date:
2026.03.12
ALI 11:14:59
+0530
FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 10686 OF 2021
ALONG WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30057 OF 2022
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 10686 OF 2021
Municipal Corporation Of Greater Bombay ....Appellant/Applicant
Versus
M/s. Ashoka Highway Ad, Mumbai & Ors. ....Respondents
__________________________________________________________________
Mr. Pradeep M. Patil for Appellant/Applicant-MCGM.
Mr. Aniruddha A. Garge for the Respondents.
__________________________________________________________________
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATED : 11th MARCH 2026
P. C. :
1. This application is filed by the appellant-corporation seeking to
condone delay of 4 years and 299 days in challenging the order dated 02 nd
May, 2016 passed by the Small Causes Court at Mumbai. The issue in the
appeal relates to determination of rateable value of the property.
2. The impugned order is dated 02nd May, 2016. The certified copy was
received on 15th June, 2016. 30 days period from the date of receipt of
HMK 2 24. FAST-10686-2021.doc
certified copy will expire on 15 th July, 2016. However, the appeal is filed on
07th May, 2021, thereby resulting into delay of 4 years and 299 days.
3. In paragraph 4 of the application it is stated that, after the receipt of
the impugned order, same was forwarded to the Assessment Department for
deciding whether to file an appeal and the Assessment Department decided
that the order should be challenged. No details of any dates are given, as to
when the order was sent to the Assessment Department and when the
Assessment Department took the decision.
4. In paragraph 4 it is further stated that, by letter dated 07 th December,
2018, Legal Department was informed about the appeal to be filed against
the impugned order. There is no explanation from 15 th June, 2016 to 07th
December, 2018, as to what happened during the intervening period.
5. In paragraph 5 it is stated that, the proceedings of the Small Causes
Court were forwarded for typing, for making copies of appeal memo to the
typing section of the Legal Department and after receiving the typed copy,
same was forwarded to the Advocate for drafting the appeal. It is not
mentioned as to when the proceedings were sent to the typing section,
when the typing section typed out the proceedings and when the same was
forwarded to the Advocate for drafting the appeal.
6. In paragraph 6, a general statement is made about too voluminous
work, sometime is consumed in preparing and approval of the draft and,
therefore that was one of the reason for the delay. It is also stated that, on
account of administrative difficulty, the delay has occurred.
7. These are the general averments made in all the applications filed by
the Corporation, which has come before me in various appeals.
HMK 3 24. FAST-10686-2021.doc
8. In paragraph 6 it is also stated that, on 20th October, 2018, the matter
was placed before the Appeal Committee for taking decision, whether to
prefer an appeal. Putting up the file before the Appeal Committee after
more than 2 years of the expiry of limitation cannot be accepted as a
ground for the delay in filing the appeal.
9. In paragraph 6 it is also stated that, after the appeal is drafted, same
was approved by the applicant on 05 th April, 2019 and, thereafter, by the
higher authority on 08th April, 2019. Assuming these dates are accepted,
still from April 2019 till 07th May, 2021, there is no explanation for delay.
10. In my view, the above reasons are not supported by any documents
and on any count cannot constitute "sufficient cause" for condoning delay.
This very issue had come up before this Court in Interim Application No.
17757 of 2022 in the case of Bhiran Mumbai Mahanagar Palika & Anr. vs.
Ashirwad Shelters Private Limited1 and by order dated 10th December,
2025, the application for condonation was rejected. This Court has followed
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead)
by LRs. vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. 2 and after considering the
dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case has rejected
such explanation.
11. In my view, the case of the present applicant is similar to the facts,
which were before me in Interim Application No. 17757 of 2022. Therefore,
following and adopting the reasoning given therein, the present application
is also dismissed by not accepting the cause shown as sufficient cause for
condoning the delay.
12. In view of above, Interim Application No. 30056 of 2022 is dismissed.
1 Decided on 10.12.2025.
2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969
HMK 4 24. FAST-10686-2021.doc
13. Consequently, First Appeal (St.) No. 10686 of 2021 and Interim
Application No. 30057 of 2022, do no survive and are disposed of
accordingly.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]
