Bombay High Court
CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA LTD. MUMBAIversusSHRI. NARENDRA JANARDAN MHATRE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court condoned the delay in filing the review petition, allowing the interim application.
Summary
The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra (CIDCO) filed an interim application seeking condonation of a delay of three years and 260 days in filing a review petition. The application was opposed by counsel for the original appellants. While such a long delay is ordinarily not condonable, the Court noted that a separate review petition filed by the State Government was within the prescribed time. Considering this, the Court deemed it appropriate to condone the delay in CIDCO's review petition. Consequently, the interim application was allowed, the delay was condoned, and the interim application was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether a review petition filed after an inordinate delay of more than three years can be condoned.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- review petition
- interim application
- high court
- civil appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
Neeta Sawant 906-IA-30749-2022.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30749 OF 2022
IN
REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO. 28356 OF 2022
City and Industrial Development
Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. Mumbai …..Applicant
In the matter between :
City and Industrial Development
Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. Mumbai …..Petitioner
: Versus :
Shri. Narendra Janardan Mhatre & Anr. ….Respondents
Mr. D.H. Haldankar, AGP for State-Petitioner in RPS-1 of 2023.
Mr. G.S. Hegde, Senior Advocate with Ms. Pinky M. Bhansali, for the
Respondent/CIDCO and for the Petitioner in RP (St.) No.28356 of 2022.
Mr. Rajesh Datar, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : 11 AUGUST 2026.
P.C :
1) This application is filed by City and Industrial Development
Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., Mumbai (CIDCO) seeking
_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NO. 1 of 2
Tuesday, 11 August 2026
Neeta Sawant 906-IA-30749-2022.docx
condonation of delay of 3 years and 260 days in filing the Review
Petition.
2) The application is opposed by Mr. Datar, the learned counsel
appearing for the Original Appellants.
3) Ordinarily, this Court would not have condoned such an
inordinate delay in filing the Review Petition. However, review of the
judgment and order is also sought by the State Government and it
appears that the Review Petition filed by the State Government is within
time. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to condone the
delay in filing the Review Petition. The Interim Application is
accordingly allowed. The delay in filing in Review Petition is condoned.
Interim Application stands disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NO. 2 of 2
Tuesday, 11 August 2026
Checking your session…