In commercial disputes, the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay must be stringent, ensuring timely resolution and preventing negligence from being a basis for delays.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

This appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 13 (1- A) of the Commercial Courts Act , 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2015 Act') read with Section 37 (1-c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1996 Act'), challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2021 passed in Com.A.S.No.69/2015 by the LXXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-85-Commercial Court, Bengaluru).

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 01.03.2007 executed between the appellants, owners of the suit schedule property, and the respondent–developer, pursuant to which a General Power of Attorney (GPA) was also executed. The disputes having arisen, the respondent initiated arbitration in A.C.No.18/2013 seeking for refund of the amount and for other reliefs. The Arbitral Tribunal, by award dated 26.02.2015, dismissed the claim. The respondent challenged the said award under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, in Com.A.S.No.69/2015, which came to be allowed by judgment dated 17.04.2021. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed along with an application in I.A.No.1/2022 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act , 1963, seeking condonation of delay of 234 days in filing the appeal.

3. Miss Samarthana Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants have filed an affidavit accompanying the application on 16.12.2022 and the averments in the affidavit shows sufficient cause to condone the delay. It is submitted that the delay in filing the present appeal is neither willful nor deliberate but has occurred due to bona fide reasons beyond the control of the appellants. It is further submitted that when the case was transferred to the Commercial Court during the Covid-19 pandemic, neither the appellants nor their lawyer received any notice about the transfer. After knowing about the Court's judgment dated 05.11.2022, they acted quickly to get the necessary documents and to file the appeal. It is also submitted that if the delay is not condoned, it would cause prejudice to the appellants as they would lose their chance to present their case, while the other side would not be harmed by allowing the case to move forward. Therefore, she seeks to condone the delay and hear the appeal on its merits.

4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, perused the material available on record and have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced.

5. The point that arises for our consideration is "Whether the appellants have shown 'sufficient cause' to condone the delay of 234 days in filing the appeal?"

6. The answer to the above point is negative for the following reasons:

(a) The affidavit accompanying the application seeking condonation of delay indicates that the respondent filed an application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, on 02.06.2015 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore, which was registered as Com.A.S.No.69/2015 challenging the award of the Arbitral Tribunal dated 26.02.2015. The appellant appeared before the said Court and contested the case. The averments indicate that the respondent prolonged the matter for 5 years. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the Court had been closed and the matter was adjourned. As per the notification dated 24.08.2020, the case was transferred to the Commercial Court. It is averred that the case status reflected that the case was disposed on 17.08.2020 which was during the Covid-19 pandemic. It is further averred that the case was transferred from the City Civil Court to Commercial Court and there was neither any notice to the appellants nor their counsel. It is also averred that the app