Bombay High Court
ASPIRA PATHLAB AND DIAGNOSTICS LTDversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND 7 ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court set aside the order dismissing the writ petition and restored it to the file, directing removal of office objections within a week.
Summary
Aspira Pathlab & Diagnostics Ltd. filed Writ Petition (L) No.12372 of 2025 against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The petition was dismissed on 6 May 2026 by the Prothonotary for failure to remove office objections within the prescribed time. The applicant filed an interim application seeking condonation of a 57‑day delay and explaining the reasons for the non‑removal of objections. The High Court, after hearing counsel, was satisfied that sufficient cause existed for both the delay and the failure to remove objections. Consequently, the court set aside the dismissal, restored the writ petition to the file, and directed the applicant to remove all office objections within one week, after which the petition will be listed for further hearing. The interim application was thereafter disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the dismissal of the writ petition for non‑removal of office objections can be set aside despite a 57‑day delay in filing the interim application.
- Whether condonation of delay is warranted on the basis of the explanations furnished by the applicant.
Legislation cited
- Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 — s. Rule 986
Subjects
- interim application
- condonation of delay
- office objections
- writ petition
- high court procedure
- restoration of petition
Judgment
3-IA-4803-2026.odt
Pallavi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by PALLAVI
MAHENDRA
PALLAVI
MAHENDRA
WARGAONKAR INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4803 OF 2026
WARGAONKAR Date:
2026.10.03
14:10:45
+0530
IN
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.12372 OF 2025
Aspira Pathlab And Diagnostics Ltd. ...Applicant
Versus
Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai And Ors. ...Respondents
...
Mr. Rubin Vakil a/w Sonam Mhatre, Sakshi Mehta, Tanya Bhutoria
i/b. Dhaval Vussonji & Associates for the Applicant.
Ms. K.H. Mastakar for the Respondent - BMC.
...
CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATE : 1st OCTOBER, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant/Petitioner.
2. This Interim Application has been preferred by the Applicant
being aggrieved by the order dated 6 th May 2026 passed by the
learned Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court under O.S.
Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. By
the said order dated 6 th May 2026, the captioned Petition stood
dismissed for non-removal of office objections.
3. Ms. Rubin Vakil, learned counsel appearing for the
Applicant/Petitioner, has drawn the attention of this Court to the
1
3-IA-4803-2026.odt
averments made in the Interim Application, particularly in
paragraph nos.10, 11 and 12 thereof, in support of the reasons for
non-removal of office objections within the prescribed period. There
is also a delay of 57 days in filing the present Interim Application.
Having considered the explanation tendered, we are satisfied that
sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of the said delay.
4. Having considered the explanation tendered, we are satisfied
that sufficient cause has been shown for non-removal of office
objections.
5. In light of the above and in the interest of justice, we
therefore, set aside the order dated 6 th May 2026 qua the instant
Writ Petition (L) No.12372 of 2025. Accordingly, the Writ Petition
would be restored to the file of this Court. The Applicant/Petitioner
shall remove all office objections within a period of one week from
the date of uploading of this order. Writ Petition to be listed
thereafter.
6. The Interim Application is Disposed Of in the above terms.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.