Allowed

Fit (Earlier Known as M/S. France International Trade) Thr.Poa Manoj A.I. v. Parag Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd.,(Earlier Known as Parag Milk and Milk Products Pvt.Ltd., Pune)

Bombay HC2 Jan 2024IA/20301/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench condoned a 102-day delay in filing a commercial appeal by rejecting the argument that the Limitation Act does not apply and finding the reasons acceptable.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 102 days in filing the appeal; registry to proceed with numbering.

What the court decided

Fit (Earlier Known as M/S. France… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally signed AARTI by AARTIGAJANAN GAJANANPALKAR PALKARDate:2024.01.04 12:35:12 +0530

¶2

18.IA.20301.2022.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.20301 OF 2022 IN

¶5

COMMERCIAL FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.21111 OF 2022

¶6

FTI (Earlier known as M/s. France International Trade) .... Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN FTI (Earlier known as M/s. France International Trade) .... Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Parag Milk Foods Ltd. .... Respondent

¶9

Mr. G.S. Godbole, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Shivraj R. Patne & Mr. Shan D. Gadgil, Advocates for Applicant/Appellant.

¶10

Mr. Kayval Shah , Advocate for Respondent.

¶11

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA &

¶12

SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ.

¶13

DATE : JANUARY 02, 2024

¶14

P. C.

¶15

The above Interim Application is filed seeking a condonation

¶16

of delay of 102 days in filing the above Appeal. The above Appeal challenges the order dated 15^th March, 2022 passed by the Court of District Judge-2, Pune in Special Civil Suit No.73 of 2016. This suit

¶17

Page 1 of 4 JANUARY 02, 2024

¶18

Aarti Palkar

¶19

18.IA.20301.2022.doc

¶20

was originally filed under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and thereafter on an objection being raised that the present dispute is a commercial dispute, was transferred to the Commercial Court. By the impugned order, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

¶21

Mr. Godbole, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant submitted that the impugned judgment is dated 15^th March, 2022 and a certified copy was applied for on 2^nd June, 2022. The certified copy was made available on 14^th June, 2022 and the above Appeal was lodged on 25^th August, 2022. He submitted that the delay has taken place because the Applicant/Appellant is a foreign entity and does not have any permanent establishment in India. He, therefore, submitted that there is sufficient explanation for the delay as more particularly set out in the Interim Application and the same ought to be condoned.

¶22

On the other hand, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted firstly that there is no power to condone the delay as Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will not apply to Appeals filed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Even otherwise he submitted that no sufficient cause has been made out in

¶23

Page 2 of 4 JANUARY 02, 2024

¶24

Aarti Palkar

¶25

18.IA.20301.2022.doc

¶26

the above Interim Application to condone the delay. It is on these two grounds that the above Interim Application was opposed.

¶27

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the papers and proceedings in the above Interim Application. As far as the first argument canvassed on behalf of the Respondent, namely, that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will not apply to appeals filed under the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, we find that the same is squarely answered by a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented by Executive Engineer Vs. M/s. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. [(2021) 6 SCC 460] . In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not exclude the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Once this is the case, we find absolutely no merit in the first contention canvassed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent. As far as no sufficient cause being shown, we have carefully gone through the Interim Application. We find that the delay is not inordinate and the explanation given in the Interim Application commends to us for condoning the delay. In these circumstances, the Interim Application is allowed and the delay of

¶28

Page 3 of 4 JANUARY 02, 2024

¶29

Aarti Palkar

¶30

18.IA.20301.2022.doc

¶31

102 days in filing the present Appeal is condoned.

¶32

Now that the delay is condoned, the Registry shall proceed to number the above Appeal subject to the Appellant/Applicant removing all other office objections within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the above Appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court.

¶33

The above Interim Application is accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶35

[SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.] [B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶36

Page 4 of 4 JANUARY 02, 2024

¶37

Aarti Palkar

Fit (Earlier Known as M/S. France International Trade) Thr.Poa Manoj A.I. v. Parag Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd.,(Earlier Known as Parag Milk and Milk Products Pvt.Ltd., Pune)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Fit (Earlier Known as M/S. France International Trade) Thr.Poa Manoj A.I. v. Parag Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd.,(Earlier Known as Parag Milk and Milk Products Pvt.Ltd., Pune)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagirathibai Shivgonda Patil Decd. Thr. Lhrs Son Shivgonda Mallikarjun Patil (D/Lrs) Kalavati Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secre. Water Resources Dept. and Ors.

Banu @ Kalibai Ismile Khan Vs State of Maharashtra

Payal Sinha Vs Prashant Saxena

Mishal Bilal Furniturewala vs New Kamal Kunj Co-Operative Housing Society Limited and 2 Ors.

Authum Investment and Infrastructure Limited vs Daewoo Motors India Limited (in Liquidation )

Maimoona Hasan Darvesh vs Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs