Case Note & Summary
The applicant, original plaintiff in Commercial Suit No.22/2017, sought condonation of 156 days' delay in filing an appeal against the dismissal of the suit for recovery of Rs.1,70,16,342/-. The suit was dismissed by the District Judge-2, Nagpur on 06.05.2022. The original defendant also filed a counter claim which was dismissed, leading to Commercial Appeal No.13/2022. The plaintiff's appeal was delayed due to voluminous record, time taken to comprehend the judgment, and resignation of the law officer handling the case. The defendant opposed condonation, arguing that Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not confer express power to condone delay. The plaintiff contended that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 makes Sections 4 to 24 applicable, including Section 5 for condonation of delay, and relied on Muhammedshafeek vs. M/s. Tasty Nut Industries (Kerala High Court). The court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to appeals under the Commercial Courts Act, as the Act does not expressly exclude it, relying on Kalpesh R. Jain vs. Mandev Tubes Private Limited (Bombay High Court) and Government of Maharashtra vs. Borse Brothers Engineers (Supreme Court). The court found sufficient cause for delay but imposed costs of Rs.10,000 payable to the defendant within four weeks. The appeals were posted for hearing on 19.07.2024.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Applicability of Section 5 to Commercial Courts Act - Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be invoked to condone delay in filing an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which does not expressly provide for condonation of delay - Held that Section 5 applies by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, as the Commercial Courts Act does not expressly exclude its application (Paras 8-10). B) Commercial Courts Act - Appeal - Condonation of Delay - Power of Appellate Court - The Commercial Appellate Court has power to condone delay beyond the prescribed period of sixty days under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, provided sufficient cause is shown, relying on Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Paras 8-10). C) Limitation Act - Section 29(2) - Applicability to Special Laws - Where a special law prescribes a period of limitation but does not expressly exclude Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, those provisions apply to proceedings under the special law - Held that Section 29(2) ensures application of limitation principles to special laws unless expressly excluded (Para 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the court has power to condone delay in filing an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, in the absence of an express provision for condonation of delay in that Act.
Final Decision
The court overruled the objection regarding lack of power to condone delay, held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies, found sufficient cause for delay, condoned the delay subject to payment of Rs.10,000 costs to the defendant within four weeks, and posted the appeals for hearing on 19.07.2024.
Law Points
- Section 5 of Limitation Act
- 1963 applicable to appeals under Section 13 of Commercial Courts Act
- 2015
- Section 29(2) of Limitation Act
- 1963 enables application of Sections 4 to 24 to special laws unless expressly excluded
- Sufficient cause for delay must be shown
- Costs may be imposed as condition for condonation
