The original plaintiff's commercial suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,70,16,342 was dismissed by the District Judge-2, Nagpur, on 06.05.2022. Both the plaintiff and defendant appealed against this decision. The plaintiff's appeal was delayed by 156 days, justified by various reasons. The defendant opposed the delay, arguing that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, does not permit condoning delays. However, the court, referencing the Limitation Act, 1963, and past judgments, ruled that it has the power to condone the delay. The plaintiff was ordered to pay Rs. 10,000 in costs to the defendant. The appeals are scheduled for hearing on 19.07.2024.

Background: The original plaintiff's commercial suit No.22/2017 for the recovery of Rs. 1,70,16,342 was dismissed by the District Judge-2, Nagpur, on 06.05.2022. The defendant's counterclaim was also dismissed.

Appeals and Delay:

• The defendant preferred Commercial Appeal No. 13 of 2022 under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
• The plaintiff's appeal was delayed by 156 days, justified by the voluminous record, time taken to comprehend the order, and the resignation of the then Law Officer.

Arguments:

• Mr. Dharmadhikari, for the defendant, argued that Section 13 of the Act of 2015 does not permit condoning the delay.
• Mr. Bodalkar, for the plaintiff, argued that the Limitation Act, 1963, particularly Section 29, allows for the condoning of delays in the absence of express provisions in the Commercial Courts Act.

Court's Analysis:

• The court referenced various judgments, including Brijesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Kalpesh R. Jain vs. Mandev Tubes Pvt. Ltd., to assert that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, can be invoked to condone delays under the Act of 2015.
• The court also cited the Supreme Court's decision in Government of Maharashtra vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd., affirming that the Limitation Act applies to the Commercial Courts Act.

Decision:

• The court overruled the defendant's objection, finding sufficient cause for the delay and ordering the plaintiff to pay Rs. 10,000 in costs to the defendant.
• The court noted that both parties had appealed against the same judgment, warranting a fair opportunity for hearing.

Next Steps:

• The plaintiff must pay the costs within four weeks and provide acknowledgment.
• The hearing for both appeals is scheduled for 19.07.2024, in accordance with Section 14 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.