BRIHAN MUMBAI MAHANAGAR PALIKA AND ANR. v. ASHIRWAD SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED
Condonation of Delay - Corporation's Delay in Filing Appeal Not Justified; Insufficient Reasons Provided; Appeal Dismissed.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:54175
Decision Date: 10-12-2025
List of Laws
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888; Section 218D of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888; Law of Limitation; Condonation of Delay; Rateable Value
- Facts: Brihan Mumbai Mahanagar Palika (the Corporation) filed an appeal challenging an order by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, which restored the rateable value of a property to Rs.7,40,530/-, against the Corporation's original determination of Rs.1.42 crores (later reduced to Rs.30 lakh). The appeal was filed with a delay of 4 years and 66 days (1526 days). The Corporation sought condonation of this delay, citing reasons such as the need for the Appeal Committee to decide on filing the appeal, communication delays, staff shortages, and the Covid-19 pandemic.
- Procedural Posture: The case came before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in its Civil Appellate Jurisdiction as an interim application (No.17757 of 2022) within a First Appeal (ST) No.94050 of 2020, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
- Issue: Was the Corporation able to provide sufficient reasons to justify the delay of 4 years and 66 days in filing the appeal, warranting condonation of the delay by the High Court?
- Holding: No, the High Court dismissed the interim application for condonation of delay, and consequently, the First Appeal was also dismissed.
- Reasoning: The Court found the reasons provided by the Corporation for the delay to be insufficient. The Court noted that the decision to appeal was taken by the Appeal Committee long after the expiry of the initial 30-day limitation period prescribed by Section 218D of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The Court also rejected the reasons of staff shortage, coordination issues, and the Covid-19 pandemic, stating that the limitation period had already expired before the pandemic began. The Court emphasized that the Corporation, being a public body, should be diligent in revenue matters and cannot be excused for such significant delays, as it could set a wrong precedent. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs. vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors., which analyzed the law on limitation and sufficient reasons, and held that the principles outlined in that case applied to the present case, leaving the Court with no option but to dismiss the application.
🔒 For Members Only