"Show Off Remedial Action" For Subsequent External Events Not Sufficient Cause: Bombay High Court Refuses To Condone Delay In MCGM's Appeal In 2017 Kamala Mills Tragedy Case
Court noted that the "sword of litigation" cannot be left hanging indefinitely over successful parties due to the internal dereliction of duty by Corporation officers who failed to report the progress of legal matters.
Justice Jitendra Jain, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that subsequent external events, even those of a significant public nature, do not provide a "sufficient cause" under the Limitation Act to revive litigation that has attained finality. Setting aside a group of approximately 26 Civil Applications and the lead appeal for condoning the delay ranging from more than 1 year and close to 9 years, concerning the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), the Court determined that the 2017 Kamala Mills tragedy and the subsequent discovery of internal negligence do not entitle a public body to challenge decade-old orders.
The Court noted that the "sword of litigation" cannot be left hanging indefinitely over successful parties due to the internal dereliction of duty by Corporation officers who failed to report the progress of legal matters. The Bench observed that while the Corporation initiated show-cause notices against negligent officers in 2018, these actions appeared to be a "show-off" to gain the Court's favor rather than sincere disciplinary measures. Further clarified that a "fresh cause of action" is the appropriate route for the Corporation to address ongoing illegalities, rather than attempting to condone delays ranging from one to nine years for notices originally issued in 2005.
Justice Jitendra Jain observed, “…in my view, such a long delay cannot be condoned, based on a subsequent incident, though, the Corporation has taken a show off remedial action…if there are illegalities committed by violating the law, then merely because for the reasons stated above, the Corporation did not file the appeal in time, should not give an incentive to the persons committing such illegalities and allow them to go unnoticed and unpunished due to inaction of officers for reasons best known to all”.
Senior Advocate Narendra Walavalkar appeared for the appellant and Advocate Archit Jayakar appeared for the respondent.
The brief facts of the case involve a challenge by the MCGM to an order passed on October 12, 2009, by the Mumbai City Civil Court. That lower court order had quashed a demolition notice issued by the Corporation under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, which targeted allegedly illegal structures. The Corporation remained inactive for years following this judgment. It was only after a high-profile fire at Kamala Mills in December 2017 that the MCGM initiated an internal audit, discovering that numerous adverse orders regarding illegal structures had never been appealed.
The appeal against the 2009 order was required to be filed within 30 days under Section 15 of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948. However, the Corporation did not file the appeal until June 29, 2018, resulting in a staggering delay of 8 years and 230 days. The Corporation sought condonation of this delay, primarily blaming its own officers for not informing superiors of the judgment and citing the Kamala Mills incident as the catalyst for their belated realization.
The Court found it "shocking" that officers failed to report adverse judgments but held that such internal failures do not constitute a legal ground to prejudice the respondents. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal & Ors. (2024) 7 SCC 433, the Court noted that if the Corporation were truly serious, stern action would have been concluded against both junior officers and their superiors by now. Furthermore, the Court remarked that after 20 years, hearing the appeal would be a mere academic exercise as the illegalities might have changed or been removed.
“…In the application it is stated that the concerned officers of the Corporation attending the matters did not inform the progress of the matters nor did they inform about the judgment being passed against the applicant corporation. In my view, this itself is very shocking reason which shows more than what the eyes can meet”, it noted.
“Nothing has been shown to me except show cause notice issued in the year 2018 against these officers. If the Corporation was so serious then by now serious and stern action should have been initiated against not only all the officers who did not report the progress but also their superiors. The action should be pre-emptive and not post such an untoward incident. We cannot stop by making a show of issuing show – cause notice to seek sympathy of the Court for condoning the delay but a stern action ought to have been taken which would have acted as deterrent but unfortunately we forget the incidents too soon and show action remains on table for long…”, it noted further.
Resultantly, the Court dismissed all applications for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the associated appeals. However, to balance equity, the Court granted the MCGM liberty to conduct fresh inspections and initiate new legal actions if current illegalities are found. The Court directed the Corporation to file a compliance report by August 12, 2026, detailing final actions taken against the negligent officers and their superiors. It also directed the Corporation to pursue criminal action if collusion with private parties is discovered.
Cause Title: The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Pankaj Mehta & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:16008]
Appearances:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Narendra Walavalkar, Pradeep M. Patil, Pallavi Khale, and Komal Punjabi, Advocates.
Respondents: Archit Jayakar, Pooja Yadav, Rahul Soman, Shobhit Shukla, Priti Thakur Vipul Shukla, Yasmin Bhansali, Prabjyot Kaur Kler & Shazia Sameen, Yash Sinha, Tushar Goradia and Rajesh S. Maravoor, Maravoor Wamorkar & Co., Kinjal Kaddad, Jayesh R. Vyas, Advocates.