CAV JUDGMENT

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

This appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2024 passed in Com.A.P.No.56/2023 by the LXXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-88) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commercial Court').

2. The appellant filed an application before the Commercial Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the arbitral award passed by the Sole Arbitrator dated 23.06.2022 in A.C.No.94/2020. The Commercial Court, after considering the material on record, proceeded to dismiss the same. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed along with an application in I.A.No.1/2025 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay of 220 days in filing the appeal.

3. Sri.B.S.Venkatanarayana, learned Central Government counsel appearing for the appellant submits that one-S.Rathi, Deputy Chief Engineer, Southern Railway has filed an affidavit and an additional affidavit on behalf of the appellant along with an application seeking for condonation of delay. It is submitted that the impugned order is passed beyond the scope of jurisdiction and the same is also in conflict with the public policy, which is required to be considered on merits. It is further submitted that the delay in filing this appeal is due to the necessary administrative approvals that were to be obtained by the appellant, which is bona fide in nature.Hence, he seeks to condone the delay of 220 days in filing the application and seeks to hear the matter on merits.

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

5. The point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is "Whether the appellant has shown "sufficient cause" to condone the delay of 220 days in filing the appeal?"

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

a) Before considering the cause shown by the appellant seeking for condonation of delay of 220 days, it would be useful to refer to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject. In the case of JHARKAND URJA UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. AND ANOTHER VS. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 910 at paragraphs20 and 21, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"20. xxxx

"19.xxxx

27. We shall next consider whether the delay of301 days in filing this Commercial Appeal can be condone in exercise of power conferred on this Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

28. The extent of applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to cases falling under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 fell for consideration of the Supreme Court in Government of Maharashtra (2 supra).

29. The Supreme Court in Para 19 of it's judgment in Government of Maharashtra (2 supra) discussed the statement of objects and reasons behind enacting of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and held that period of limitation must always to some extent be arbitrary and may result in some hardship, but this is no reason as to why they should not be strictly followed.

In para 32, it held that the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has to be seen in the context of the object of speedy resolution of the dispute.

In para 58, the Supreme Court held that given the object sought to be achieved under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 i.e., the speedy resolution of the disputes, expression “sufficient cause” in Section 5 of

the Limitation Act, 1963 is not elastic enough to cover long delays beyond the period provided by the appeal provision itself; and that the expression “sufficient cause” is not itself a loose panacea for the ill of pressing negligent and stale cla