Back
NITIN W. SAMBRE, ABHAY J. MANTRI
CEAT Limited – Appellant
Versus
Viren Mishra – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. The applicant is the original plaintiff whose commercial suit being No.22/2017 came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 06.05.2022 passed by the District Judge-2, Nagpur. The suit pertains to the recovery of amount of Rs.1,70,16,342/-.
3. The original defendant has preferred counter claim and the same was also dismissed. As a sequel thereof, the defendant has preferred Commercial Appeal No. 13 of 2022 under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short, the Act of 2015).
4. As far as appeal preferred by the original plaintiff-the applicant herein is concerned, there appears delay of 156 days which is sought to be justified on the ground of voluminous record, time consumed in comprehending the order and judgment from such voluminous record, the resignation of the then Law Officer, who was handling the case, etc.
5. Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing for the original defendant-non-applicant herein would oppose the prayer on the ground that Section 13 of the Act of 2015 does not confer express power to condone the delay.
6. As against above, Mr. Bodalkar, learned counsel appearing for the original plaintiff-applicant herein submits that
(1) Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 can be invoked and applied to condone delay under Commercial Courts Act, 2015.(2) Law of Limitation is for general welfare that a period be put to litigation – R....
Timely communication of judgments is critical, and failure to act diligently does not justify excessive delays in filing appeals under commercial law.
Limitation – Law of limitation cannot be read in such a manner whereby parties stop showing any modicum of regard for their own rights and on pre-text of untimely communication continue to litigate w....
A Chief Financial Officer must be authorized by the company's Board to institute legal proceedings; lack of authorization renders the suit non-maintainable under the Companies Act.
The need for expediency and quick resolution in commercial matters, indicating a paradigm shift in the approach to condoning delays.
The Court held that the 60-day limitation for appeals under the Arbitration Act is strict and can only be extended in exceptional cases where sufficient cause is demonstrated, which was not establish....
The court established that the limitation period for appeals under the Arbitration Act is 60 days as per the Commercial Courts Act, but delays can be condoned based on sufficient cause, including rel....
(1) Condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act has to be seen in context of object of speedy resolution of disputes. Section 5 of Limitation Act will apply to appeals, both by virtue of S....
The court denied condonation of a 721-day delay in appeal filing due to lack of sufficient cause and negligence in prosecution, emphasizing that such delays in commercial matters require strict adher....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
