Bombay High Court
ANUPAM PINAKINBHAI PADAYAversusMumbai International Airport Limited MIAL
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court restored the writ petition to the file, condoned the delay, and ordered deletion of respondents 4 and 6.
Summary
Anupam Padaya filed a writ petition on 29 January 2025 which was dismissed on 6 May 2026 for failure to remove office objections under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. He subsequently filed an interim application seeking (i) deletion of respondents 4 and 6, who are law firms, and (ii) restoration of the writ petition despite a 26‑day delay. The Court granted deletion of the two respondents and, after hearing counsel for MIAL, restored the writ petition to the file, condoning the delay, while expressly reserving all other contentions of the respondents. No merits of the underlying writ were considered. The application was allowed without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition can be restored despite the delay and non‑removal of office objections under Rule 986.
- Whether the petitioner may delete respondents 4 and 6 from the proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 — s. Rule 986
Subjects
- writ petition
- interim application
- restoration
- procedural delay
- Rule 986
- deletion of parties
- Bombay High Court
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
AJIT
AJIT
RAMESH
RAMESH
PATHRIKAR
PATHRIKAR Date:
1-IA-5031-2026.DOC
2026.10.09
13:53:03
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5031 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3459 OF 2025
Anupam Pinakinbhai Padaya ...Applicant/Petitioner
Versus
Mumbai International Airport
Limited (MIAL) & Ors. ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Anupam Padaya, Applicant in person, present.
Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate, a/w Chirag Kamdar, Shoma Maitra, Suhas
S. Kadu i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Respondent.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 05th OCTOBER 2026
P.C.
1. At the outset, Mr. Anupam Padaya, Applicant-in-person, states that he is
not pressing any of the allegations in the present proceedings against Respondent
Nos.4 and 6 and does not wish to pursue the present proceedings against
Respondent Nos.4 and 6. He, hence, seeks deletion of their names from the array
of parties.
2. Permission, as sought for, is granted. The amendment be carried out
forthwith. Re-verification is dispensed with.
3. In this view of the matter, none of the allegations made against Respondent
Nos.4 and 6, which are the law firms, can be entertained.
4. On the aforesaid premise, we have taken this Interim Application for
hearing.
Page 1 of 3
Ajit Pathrikar
1-IA-5031-2026.DOC
5. We have heard Mr. Anupam Padaya, Applicant-in-person and Mr. Vikram
Nankani, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No.1-Mumbai International
Airport Limited (MIAL).
6. By this Interim Application, the Applicant-in-person seeks restoration of the
Writ Petition, which came to be filed on 29th January 2025 and was dismissed for
want of non-removal of office objections under Rule 986 of the Bombay High
Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980, by an order dated 6 th May 2026 passed by the
Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court.
7. There is a delay of 26 days in filing of this application. There are also other
prayers which, in our opinion, are totally irrelevant to the relief sought for
restoration, namely prayer clauses (c) (d) (e) and (f).
8. Having heard Mr. Anupam Padaya, Applicant-in-Person and having
perused the memo of the application, and subject to the contentions of Mr.
Nankani on behalf of Respondent No.1 intends to raise and on the premise that
none of the allegations of the Applicant are admitted on behalf of Respondent
No.1, considering that the Applicant is appearing in person, in the present
proceedings and in the Writ Petition which was rejected for non-removal of office
objections, we are inclined to restore the petition to the file of this Court by
condoning the delay.
9. We expressly make it clear that we have not considered any of the
contentions which are raised in the memo of the application or any of the
allegations made in that regard, except considering simpliciter restoration of the
Writ Petition to the file of this Court.
Page 2 of 3
Ajit Pathrikar
1-IA-5031-2026.DOC
10. Accordingly, the Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses
(a) and (b), keeping all contentions of the Respondents open, including the
averments and statements made in the memo of the petition.
11. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Ajit Pathrikar
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.