The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai And Another v. Mr. Abdul Kased Shaikh

by VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date:

2025.07.25 14:12:32 +0530 VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

varsha CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4108 OF 2025 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 3262 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10359 OF 2025 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 11521 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION(ST) NO. 12173 OF 2025 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER(ST) NO. 12164 OF 2025 The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr ... Applicants/Appellants vs.

Mr. Abdul Kased Shaikh ... Respondent Mr. Om Suryavanshi i/b. Ms. Komal Punjabi for the AppellantBMC. Mr. Shobhit Shukla a/w. Mr. Ayman Khan for Respondent. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

DATED : 23rd JULY 2025 ORDER:

1.

Learned counsel for the corporation submits that similar appeals were filed challenging interim orders in similar suits Page no. 1 of 3

challenging the notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. Even in those appeals interim applications for condonation of delay, were filed. He submits that those applications were filed by the corporation for condonation of delay of approximately more than 700 days in filing the appeals. 2.

Learned counsel for the corporation submits that even in these appeals, same reasons for delay are stated. He submits that all the factual aspects and reasons in these applications for delay condonation are also the same. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that even in these applications respondents have filed reply opposing delay condonation application on the same objections that false and frivolous grounds are raised for condonation of delay.

3.

In view of the same facts and same submissions made on behalf of the corporation and the reasons recorded in order dated 23rd April 2025 in Interim Application(St) No. 11513 of 2025 in Appeal from Order(St) No. 11511 of 2025 alongwith the other connected appeals, no different view can be taken in these applications.

4.

Hence, for the reasons recorded in the said order dated 23rd April 2025, I see no different reason to condone delay in Page no. 2 of 3

these applications. Hence, these applications are dismissed. 5.

In view of dismissal of the applications, the appeals and the other connected applications for interim relief stands dismissed. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 3 of 3