Section 5 Of Limitation Act Can Be Applied To Condone Delays Under Commercial Courts Act Even In Absence Of Express Provisions: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court condoned delay in filing an appeal pertaining to a commercial suit, citing Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act which allows for the condonation of delay, even in absence of any specific provisions in the Limitation Act. The Court referred to Section 29 of the Limitation Act, stating that since the Commercial Courts Act does not specify a limitation period, Sections 4...
The Bombay High Court condoned delay in filing an appeal pertaining to a commercial suit, citing Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act which allows for the condonation of delay, even in absence of any specific provisions in the Limitation Act. The Court referred to Section 29 of the Limitation Act, stating that since the Commercial Courts Act does not specify a limitation period, Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act apply.
The Division Bench of Nitin W. Sambre and Abhay J. Mantri were considering the appeal of the applicant/original-plaintiff against the judgment of the District Court in a commercial suit for recovery of amount of Rs.1,70,16,342. The District Court had also dismissed the counter claim of the original defendant/non-applicant (respondent). The original defendant's commercial appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was dismissed as well.
The applicant/original-plaintiff sought condonation of delay of 156 days on ground of voluminous record of the judgment and resignation of the counsel. Non-applicant/ original-defendant opposed it on the ground that Section 13 of Commercial Courts Act does not confer any express powers on the court to condone the delay.
The High Court stated that the plain reading of Section 13 of Commercial Courts Act indicates that the delay can be condoned even in absence of any express provisions in the Limitation Act. The Court referred to Section 29 of Limitation Act which provided that if the period of limitation is not prescribed in any special or local law, then provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act will apply.
“In view of the provisions of Section 29 of the Act of 1963, it has to be inferred upon plain reading of the provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 2015 the power to condone delay can be exercised even in absence of express provision to that effect in the Act of 1963” it stated.
Therefore, as per Section 29(2) of Limitation Act, as the principal statute (Commercial Courts Act) does not contain any provisions on limitation period, provisions of Section 4 to 24 of Limitation Act are attracted.
The Court stated that Section 5 of Limitation Act, which deals with condonation of delay in case of sufficient cause, is applicable to the present case.
With respect to the cause for condonation of delay prayed by the applicant, the Court held that there was sufficient cause to condone to delay. It noted that as the non-applicant/original-defendant also preferred a Commercial Appeal against the judgment of the District Court, it could be inferred that both the parties are aggrieved with the judgment delivered in Commercial Suit.
The High Court thus condoned the delay and directed the applicant to pay Rs.10,000 to the non-applicant/ original-defendant.
Case title: CEAT Limited vs. Viren Mishra (Civil Application (O) No. 705 of 2023)