Bombay High Court
MR. NAVEEN M. BAJAJ AND ANOTHERversusTHE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court condoned the 19‑day delay and ordered the appeal to be listed for admission.
Summary
The applicants, Naveen M. Bajaj and another, filed an appeal against an order of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai but missed the prescribed time limit by 19 days. They moved an interim application seeking condonation of the delay, arguing that the delay was not gross and that they would be rendered remediless if the appeal were dismissed. The respondent, represented by Ms. Smita V. Tondwalkar, raised no written opposition and only orally opposed, without disputing the established legal principles on condonation. Justice Aarti Sathe examined the memo, found the reasons for delay satisfactory and the period not excessive, and held that justice required condoning the delay. Consequently, the interim application was allowed, the appeal was ordered to be listed for admission, and no costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 19 days in filing an appeal can be condoned under the applicable limitation provisions.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- appeal
- civil procedure
- interim application
- municipal corporation
Judgment
1 of 2 14-IA 6574-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6574 of 2026
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER ST. NO. 21481 OF 2026
Mr. Naveen M. Bajaj and another Applicants
versus
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Respondent
_______
Sr. Advocte Atul Damle a/w Adv Hitesh Vyas, Adv. Rasik Raut, for Applicants.
Ms. Smita V. Tondwalkar for Respondent BMC.
_______
CORAM : AARTI SATHE, J.
DATE : 24 AUGUST 2026
P.C.
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on this Interim Application
which is filed praying for condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid appeal. The delay
which is sought to be condoned is of 19 days. On the Respondent being served, the
Respondent is represented by Ms. Smita V. Tondwalkar learned counsel. There is no
written opposition filed to this application. Ms. Smita V. Tondwalkar, although has
orally opposed this application vehemently, she would not dispute the well settled
position in law in a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court in regard to the principles
to be followed on condonation of the delay and more particularly she would not dispute
that, in the clear facts and circumstances of the case, as set out in the memo of the
application, the Applicant ought not to suffer or be rendered remediless in pursuing the
Appeal.
2. In the aforesaid circumstances, having perused the memo of the application and
Tiwari
2 of 2 14-IA 6574-2026.DOC
considering the period of delay not being very gross, in my opinion, the reasons as set out
certainly provide for an appropriate justification and a sufficient cause shown by the
applicant in regard to the delay in filing the appeal. It is hence in the interest of justice
that the delay is condoned.
3. The Interim Application is hence allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
4. The Appeal accordingly be listed for admission, subject to removal of objections, if
any, to be removed within eight weeks from today.
5. Interim application stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
(AARTI SATHE, J.)
Tiwari
Checking your session…