Bombay High Court

THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAIversusM/S. ELEGANT MARBLES and GRANI INDUSTRIS LTD. AND ANR.

Decided: 2 April 2026
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN

Holding

The delay of more than eight years is not condoned; the civil application for condonation is dismissed.

Summary

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai filed a group of civil applications seeking condonation of an eight‑year delay in filing an appeal against a 2009 City Civil Court order that had upheld a demolition notice under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The corporation argued that the delay was caused by internal negligence and a tragic incident at the Kamla Mills compound, which prompted a review of pending cases. The court examined whether such subsequent events constitute "sufficient cause" to excuse the statutory limitation period under section 15 of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal, the court held that a later incident does not justify a delay of over eight years. Consequently, the court dismissed the lead civil application and, by extension, all related applications and appeals, directing the corporation to report on disciplinary actions against errant officers.

Issues considered

Whether the eight‑year and 230‑day delay in filing the appeal can be condoned as "sufficient cause" under the limitation provisions.
Whether a subsequent event (the Kamla Mills incident) can be treated as a valid reason for condoning the delay.
Whether internal administrative negligence of municipal officers can constitute sufficient cause for condonation.

Legislation cited

Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 — s. 15
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 — s. 351

Subjects

condonation of delay
limitation period
municipal corporation
demolition notice
administrative negligence
civil procedure
Section 351
Section 15
Supreme Court precedent
fresh inspection

Judgment

S. Bang 901-FA(ST).18596.2018.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.18596 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3725 OF 2019
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3058 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3057 OF 2018

The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
Pankaj Mehta & Ors. ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.8362 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3144 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3175 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO.13669 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3143 OF 2018

The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
M/s. Casa Paradox Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.8367 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3162 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3160 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.45 OF 2025

1 of 17
S. Bang 901-FA(ST).18596.2018.doc

The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
Eicher Goodearth Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.8375 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.48 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3171 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.47 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3170 OF 2018

The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
M/s. Vinubhai Chandulal Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.8381 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3167 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.46 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3166 OF 2018

The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
M/s. Tristar Interior Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.8393 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.43 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3151 OF 2018

2 of 17
S. Bang 901-FA(ST).18596.2018.doc

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3153 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3152 OF 2018

The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
M/s. Capelin Investment And
Trading Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.8513 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.44 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3128 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3131 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3129 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3130 OF 2018

The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
M/s. Rusco Pharma Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.12853 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3125 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3127 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3124 OF 2018

The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
M/s. Aamore-Per-La-Casa & Ors. ...Respondents

3 of 17
S. Bang 901-FA(ST).18596.2018.doc

WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.17736 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3157 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3156 OF 2018

The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
Zahir Zenuddin Marchant ...Respondent

WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.17744 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3138 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3137 OF 2018

The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
Biharilal Uddhavdas Wadhwa & Ors. ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.17749 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3148 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3147 OF 2018

The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
Satish Shah & Ors. ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.17755 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3154 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3155 OF 2018

4 of 17
S. Bang 901-FA(ST).18596.2018.doc

The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
M/s. Deluxe Polymers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.17763 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3041 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3040 OF 2018

The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
Manju Singhvi ...Respondent

WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.17767 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3141 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3142 OF 2018

The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
Babulal P. Bohra & Ors. ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.17998 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3043 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3044 OF 2018

The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
Rohit Gupta & Ors. ...Respondents

5 of 17
S. Bang 901-FA(ST).18596.2018.doc

WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.18001 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3055 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3056 OF 2018

The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
Shimera Project Lighting & Anr. ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.18006 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3052 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3051 OF 2018

The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
M/s. Venus Wire Industries
Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.18010 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3046 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3045 OF 2018

The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
M/s. Leonard Holding and
Trading Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.18087 OF 2018
WITH

6 of 17
S. Bang 901-FA(ST).18596.2018.doc

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3039 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3038 OF 2018

The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
M/s. Design Multiples & Anr. ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.18095 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3048 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3047 OF 2018

The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
Bihar Supply Company & Ors. ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.18101 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3049 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3050 OF 2018

The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
M/s. Shree Ganesh Knitting
and Manufacturing Mills & Ors. ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.18594 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3146 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3145 OF 2018

7 of 17
S. Bang 901-FA(ST).18596.2018.doc

The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
M/s. Delux Polymers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.19564 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3165 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3164 OF 2018

The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
M/s. Comrade Lease Finvest
Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.19600 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3037 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3036 OF 2018

The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
Sanjay Mahendra Chopra & Ors. ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.20109 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3139 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3140 OF 2018

The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
M/s. Vitesse Limited & Ors. ...Respondents

8 of 17
S. Bang 901-FA(ST).18596.2018.doc

WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.24159 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3177 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3176 OF 2018

The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
M/s. Elegant Marbles and
Grani Industries Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents
_____________________________________________________
Mr. Narendra Walavalkar, Sr. Adovate a/w. Mr. Pradeep M. Patil, Ms.
Pallavi Khale i/b. Ms. Komal Punjabi for Appellant/BMC.
Mr.Rajesh Rathod, Assistant Engineer Building and Factory G/Sourth
Ward present.
Mr. Archit Jayakar a/w. Ms. Pooja Yadav i/b. Jayakar & Partners for
Respondent No.1 in CAF/3160/2018 in FAST/8367/2018 and
CAF/3151/2018 in FAST/8393/2018.
Mr. Rahul Soman a/w. Mr. Suyash More i/b. Mr. Makarant Raut for
Applicant in CA/77/2019 in for Respondent No.7 in FAST/19600/2018.
Mr. Shobhit Shukla a/w. Ms. Priti Thakur for Respondent in
FAST/19564/2018, FAST/18594/2018, FAST/24159/2018,
FAST/17755/2018.
Mr. Vipul Shukla i/b. Mr. Jayesh Vyas for Respondents in
FAST/17736/2018, CAF/3156/2018 & CAF/3157/2018.
Mrs. Yasmin Bhansali a/w. Ms. Prabjyot Kaur Kler & Ms. Shazia Sameen
i/b. Yasmin Bhansali & Co. for Respondent No.1 in FAST/18001/2018 &
CAF/3055/2018.
Mr. Yash Sinha i/b. Mr. Tushar Goradia for Respondents in
CAF/3040/2018 in FAST/1763/2018.
Mr. Rajesh S. Maravoor i/b. Maravoor Wamorkar & Co. for Respondents
in FAST/18596/2018, FAST/8362/2018, FAST/17744/2018,

9 of 17
S. Bang 901-FA(ST).18596.2018.doc

FAST/17749/2018, FAST/17998/2018, FAST/18006/2018,
FAST/18010/2018, FAST/18087/2018 & FAST/18095/2018.
Ms. Kinjal Kaddad a/w. Mr. Jayesh R. Vyas for Respondents in
FAST/17736/218 & CAF/3157/2018 & CAF/3156/2018.
_____________________________________________________

CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATE : 2 APRIL 2026
JUDGMENT :

1. This is a group of around 26 Civil Applications filed by the
Corporation for condoning the delay ranging from more than 1 year and
close to 9 years approximately. By consent, Civil Application No. 3057 of
2018 filed in FA(ST) No. 18596 of 2018 is taken as lead matter, since
reasons in all these civil applications for explaining delay as per all the
counsel is more or less similar.

2. This application is filed by the Corporation to challenge the order
passed on 12th October, 2009 by the City Civil Court, Mumbai whereby
challenge to notice under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation Act, 1888 for demolition of illegal structure/s was upheld,
by quashing the notice dated 26th April, 2005.

3. As per Section 15 of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948,
appeal had to be filed within 30 days thereof. However, the appeal has
been filed on 29th June, 2018. This has resulted into delay of 8 years
230 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, present civil application for
condoning the delay.

4. I have heard learned senior counsel for the applicant-Corporation
and learned counsel for the respondents.

10 of 17
S. Bang 901-FA(ST).18596.2018.doc

5. In the civil application, reasons for the delay is mentioned in
paragraph 5. Briefly, the reason is that in December, 2017 a mishap took
place at Kamla Mills Compound in which innocent young lives were
lost. This incident was a wake-up call for the Corporation and the
applicant-Corporation immediately thereafter initiated enquiry into all
the establishments where illegalities were committed and an action was
taken by the Corporation. During this enquiry and investigation, the
applicant-Corporation realized that, various orders were passed by the
City Civil Court, Mumbai quashing the demolition notice which were in
fact not challenged in appeal and much time had lapsed thereafter. In
the application it is stated that the concerned officers of the Corporation
attending the matters did not inform the progress of the matters nor did
they inform about the judgment being passed against the applicant-
Corporation. In my view, this itself is very shocking reason which shows
more than what the eyes can meet.

6. At this stage, on a query raised by this court, the learned senior
counsel for the Corporation has produced before me, documents
showing action initiated against these officers in the year 2018. I hope
that the action initiated in the year 2018, by now has culminated into
passing of the appropriate orders after conducting departmental
enquiries and if not then it is a very sorry state of affairs that till today
after close to 8 years these actions are only show-off. In such a case, the
Corporation is directed to close the proceedings within 4 months from
today and a report of the action taken should be filed in this Court. The
action should not be restricted against these officers but also against
their superiors because it was the duty of the superiors to have
supervised the progress which prima facie appears to have been not
carried out, atleast nothing is stated in affidavit. Only some officers

11 of 17
S. Bang 901-FA(ST).18596.2018.doc

cannot be made scapegoat and others go untouched.

7. I do not wish to reproduce paragraph 5 but I have summarized
the contents of the said paragraph above. The Corporation has also filed
an additional affidavit of Smt. Swapnaja Kshirsagar affirmed on 30th
March, 2026, wherein what was stated in the original affidavit has been
reiterated.

8. The issue before me is whether there is a “sufficient cause” to
condone the delay. Admittedly, except alleging in-action on the part of
the officers of the Corporation which came to light after the incident of
Kamla Mill Compound, nothing else has been asserted. Whether a
subsequent event would constitute “sufficient cause” has to be
examined. In my view, subsequent event in another matter would not
entitle a party to challenge an order after a period of 8 years and 230
days. The reason for not filing the appeal as per the affidavit is that the
concerned officers did not inform the progress of the matter and
judgment of the City Civil Court, Mumbai. This is an internal matter of
the Corporation for which the sword of the litigation cannot be left
hanging for an indefinite period over a party who had succeeded in the
Court unless collusion is averred which in the affidavit is not. The
Corporation has taken action against the concerned officers as observed
by me above, but still that would not entitle the Corporation to contend
that there was “sufficient cause”. Between the Corporation and the
party before me, the lis has come to an end on the expiry of the
limitation period by not challenging the impugned order.

9. Nothing has been shown to me except show cause notice issued
in the year 2018 against these officers. If the Corporation was so serious
then by now serious and stern action should have been initiated against

12 of 17
S. Bang 901-FA(ST).18596.2018.doc

not only all the officers who did not report the progress but also their
superiors. The action should be pre-emptive and not post such an
untoward incident. We cannot stop by making a show of issuing show –
cause notice to seek sympathy of the Court for condoning the delay but
a stern action ought to have been taken which would have acted as
deterrent but unfortunately we forget the incidents too soon and show
action remains on table for long. This Court cannot be used as a tool for
inaction and dereliction of duty by the officers of the Corporation. The
fact of so many matters were not reported is a serious concern for
introspection in the working of the World’s largest Corporation.

10. Therefore, I am of the view that, the reasons given in the
application, namely the incident of Kamla Mill Compound and the
officers not informing their superiors about the progress of the matter
would not constitute “sufficient cause”. The Corporation should have an
inbuilt system whereby the progress of the litigation pending before
various courts should be monitored by the superiors either by calling
the junior officers or by making certain notings in the system which will
get reflected on the system of the superiors. Such a thing should not
happen in future. It is the duty of the superiors to seek report about the
progress of matters. In my view, if reasons are correct then superiors are
equally responsible for dereliction in carrying out their duties.

11. The issue whether subsequent incident or event would entitle a
litigant to challenge after so many years had come up for consideration
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development
Authority Vs. Tejpal and Others1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has
discussed this issue at length from paragraphs 37 to 47. Though, the
said decision is with respect to change in law, on account of subsequent,

1 (2024) 7 SCC 433

13 of 17
S. Bang 901-FA(ST).18596.2018.doc

Supreme Court decision relating to land acquisition, in my view, it
applies with greater force in the present matter where the subsequent
event is a manmade disaster, on account of inaction by the concerned
local authorities. Therefore, in my view, such a long delay cannot be
condoned, based on a subsequent incident, though, the Corporation has
taken a show off remedial action.

12. However, at the same time, if there are illegalities committed by
violating the law, then merely because for the reasons stated above, the
Corporation did not file the appeal in time, should not give an incentive
to the persons committing such illegalities and allow them to go
unnoticed and unpunished due to inaction of officers for reasons best
known to all. It is also important to note that the notice which was
challenged before the City Civil Court, Mumbai was of the year 2005
and now we are in the year 2026. Much water must have flown in last
two decades, which may result into hearing this appeal as an academic
exercise after delay of filing of more than 8 years. This is so because the
illegalities alleged by the Corporation may have either been removed on
account of lapse of time or may have changed on account of various
other factors. Therefore, a fresh beginning can always be made in the
larger interest of the safety of the society and for ensuring that laws of
this country does not remain on paper but are complied with by one
and all.

13. Therefore, to balance the equity and to ensure that illegality is
not gone unpunished, liberty is given to the Corporation to carry out
fresh inspection and initiate fresh action, in accordance with law and if
permissible, to ascertain whether any illegalities are committed on such
inspection as of today. Such fresh cause of action would be, of course, in
accordance with law and the impugned order dated 12 th October, 2009

14 of 17
S. Bang 901-FA(ST).18596.2018.doc

would not come in the way of the Corporation since the same is based
on illegalities noticed in the year 2005. If such an action is initiated,
then the noticee would be entitled to raise all defences available to
them in law. All contentions of all the parties are kept open since I have
not opined on merits, in this present order. This course of action is
acceptable to the Corporation as very fairly stated by learned senior
counsel but is not acceptable to the respondents for the reasons best
known to them when they don’t have to fear if they have not committed
any illegalities and the doors of the Court are always open if they find
action of the Corporation is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the
present order is not passed on concession, but in accordance with the
conscious of this Court and in accordance with the oath which this
Court has taken to protect the Constitution and law of the land. This
Court will be failing in its duty and oath if the illegalities and inaction of
officers goes unchecked and unpunished.

14. In view of above, the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned.
Civil Application No. 3057 of 2018 is dismissed. Consequently, appeals
stands dismissed and civil applications, if any, does not survive.

15. Before parting, the Corporation to file a report of action taken
pursuant to show cause notices of the year 2018 with this Court on or
before 12th August, 2026, on which day the Corporation will apprise the
progress made on the proceedings pursuant to the said show cause
notices, if the same has not culminated in the order. The progress report
should indicate the action taken against not only the noticee’s but also
against their superiors for dereliction of their duty and also explanation
for not concluding the show cause notice till today, if not concluded.

16. The show cause notice shown by the learned counsel is returned

15 of 17
S. Bang 901-FA(ST).18596.2018.doc

back in the Court. The Court expects that the Corporation will take
strict action against all the persons found guilty which is alleged in the
show cause notice. If on enquiries and investigation it is found that
private persons have colluded with officers and are also involved then,
the Corporation should take appropriate action including criminal
action against the private persons, and the police authorities are
directed to take immediate action against them, by lodging FIR at the
behest of the Corporation. It is the duty of all the machineries of the
State to co-ordinate and work together at a lightning speed to bring all
the guilty persons to be booked in accordance with law.

17. Insofar as, all the other civil applications are concerned, the
reasons given by me while disposing the Civil Application No. 3057 of
2018 would be equally applicable to all these civil applications and,
therefore, adopting the same reasoning and by giving the same liberty,
all the civil applications for condoning the delay are dismissed.
Consequently, all the appeals and civil applications are also dismissed.

18. It is made clear that the above/direction is only against the issue
of officers not reporting the progress and informing about the adverse
orders against the Corporation. I am not in this matter directly
concerned with the untoward incident at Kamla Mill Compound for
which the State must have taken appropriate action.

19. Citizens of Commercial Capital of the Country have high
expectations from the newly appointed Administrator of the
Corporation, who has created history and I hope the Administrator
would live upto the expectations and not let citizens down but would
make us all proud.

16 of 17
S. Bang 901-FA(ST).18596.2018.doc

20. Registry to send a copy of this order to the Commissioner of the
Corporation and to the Chief Legal Officer of the Corporation.

21. All Civil Applications and Appeals are disposed of.

22. List these matter on 13th August, 2026 for reporting “compliance”.

[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]

SAYYED Digitally signed
by SAYYED
SAEED SAEED ALI
ALI AHMED ALI
AHMED Date:
2026.04.04
ALI 15:21:37 +0530

17 of 17

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…