In a landmark ruling that brings to an end two decades of litigation, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a civil suit filed by lessee Maheshkumar Gordhandas Garodia over the iconic Arthur Salt Works and Jenkins Salt Works parcels at Kanjur Marg (Village Kanjur, Mumbai Suburban District).
Justice Sandeep V. Marne, in his judgment pronounced on 17 March 2026 (reserved on 5 March 2026) in Civil Revision Application (ST.) No. 23914 of 2023, allowed the revision petition filed by the Union of India (Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Deputy Salt Commissioner and Joint Secretary) and set aside the City Civil Court’s order dated 11 November 2022.
The court directed the outright dismissal of Civil Suit No. 6256 of 2005, holding that the suit had become infructuous after the natural expiry of the 99-year lease on 14 October 2016.
Background of the Kanjur Marg Salt Pan Land Dispute
The disputed lands comprise:
- Arthur Salt Works – 251 acres and 21 gunthas (Survey Nos. 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23)
- Jenkins Salt Works – 249 acres and 10 gunthas (Survey No. 169)
Both plots were leased by the Secretary of State for India to the plaintiff’s predecessors on 15 October 1917 for salt manufacturing for a period of 99 years (expiring on 14 October 2016).
The Union of India terminated the leases prematurely on 2 November 2004. The plaintiff challenged the termination orders by filing Suit No. 1173 of 2005 in the Bombay High Court (later transferred and renumbered as Civil Suit No. 6256 of 2005 in the City Civil Court, Mumbai). The suit sought a declaration that the termination orders were illegal and that the lease agreements dated 16 February 1922 were valid, subsisting and binding.
An interim injunction was granted in 2005, allowing the plaintiff to continue in possession.
Expiry of Lease and the Notice of Motion
After the 99-year term ended by efflux of time on 14 October 2016, the Union of India moved Notice of Motion No. 3788 of 2016 seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that the cause of action had ceased and the suit had become infructuous. The City Civil Court rejected the motion on 11 November 2022, primarily to protect the interim order.
The Union of India then approached the High Court in revision under Section 115 of the CPC.
Key Arguments and Court’s Reasoning
Appearing for the Union of India, Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh (with Mr. Aditya Thakkar, Mr. D.P. Singh, Mr. Adarsh Vyas, Ms. Rama Gupta, Mr. Dhaval Shetia and Ms. Rupali Srivastav) argued that the entire cause of action had evaporated with the expiry of the lease. He relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v. Machado Brothers (2004) 11 SCC 168, which holds that courts have inherent power under Section 151 CPC to dismiss infructuous suits when subsequent events render them pointless.
The ASG also cited the Division Bench judgment in Maheshkumar Gordhandas Garodia v. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 5362 of 2024, decided 16 February 2026) and the dismissal of a similar suit in Vikas Kamalakar Walawalkar v. Deputy Salt Commissioner.
Opposing the revision, Mr. Aditya Bapat (with Mr. S.A.K. Najam-es-sani) contended that no provision in the CPC allows dismissal merely because the cause of action has ended and that powers under Section 151 cannot be invoked when alternate remedies exist. He argued that the plaintiff had applied for renewal and that an amendment application was pending.
Court’s Ruling: Suit Rendered Infructuous
Justice Marne rejected the plaintiff’s arguments, observing:
- The plaint contained no prayer for renewal of the lease (the amendment application was filed only on 30 June 2025, almost three years after the impugned order).
- The sole substantial prayer — declaration that the 1922 lease agreements were “valid, subsisting and binding” — became meaningless after 14 October 2016.
- There was no need to adjudicate the validity of the 2004 termination orders once the lease term had expired naturally.
- Relying extensively on the Shipping Corporation of India precedent, the court held that a suit cannot be kept alive artificially merely to preserve an interim injunction. “Interlocutory orders are made in aid of final orders and not vice versa,” the judge noted.
The court clarified that powers under Section 151 CPC are available precisely in such situations where no other provision (like Order VII Rule 11) applies to a supervening event that kills the cause of action.
The plaintiff’s request for a four-week stay on the judgment was also rejected.
Operative Order
The Bombay High Court:
- Set aside the City Civil Court order dated 11 November 2022.
- Made the Notice of Motion absolute and dismissed Civil Suit No. 6256 of 2005 in its entirety.
- Passed no order as to costs.
This ruling comes days after the same judge (as part of a Division Bench) dismissed related writ petitions challenging land transfers from these very salt pan parcels.
Also Read: PM to Inaugurate Mumbai Metro Line Today
