Bombay High Court
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE INDIAN NAVYversusNORDLAKE GMBH
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court condoned the 55‑day delay, allowing the appeal to proceed, and deferred consideration of the maintainability objection.
Summary
The Union of India (through the Indian Navy) filed an interim application seeking condonation of a 55‑day delay in filing an appeal against a judgment dated 17‑Feb‑2023 in a commercial admiralty suit. The respondents objected, arguing that a preliminary objection to the appeal’s maintainability under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 should have been decided before considering the condonation request. The Court held that the appeal can only be entertained after the delay is condoned, and any maintainability issue will be addressed later. The Court examined the applicant’s explanation that the delay was due to multiple clearances required from the Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Law and Justice, and Ministry of Finance, and found the reasons genuine and the delay minimal. Consequently, the Court granted the condonation of delay, making the interim application absolute, while noting that the maintainability objection will be considered in due course.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 55 days in filing an appeal can be condoned under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
- Whether a preliminary objection to the appeal’s maintainability under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act must be decided before condoning the delay.
Legislation cited
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — s. 13(1A)
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- commercial courts
- appeal maintainability
- Section 13(1A)
- procedural law
- national security
- Ministry of Defence
Judgment
902-IA-1958-2023.odt
rajshree
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1958 OF 2024
IN
COMMERCIAL APPEAL (ST) NO.17109 OF 2023
Union of India through
the Indian Navy .. Applicant
In the matter of
Union of India through
the Indian Navy .. Appellant
vs.
MS.Nordlake GmBH & Anr. .. Respondents
Mr. Rahul Narichania, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Siddharth
Chabria, Ashish Mehta and Yash Kataria i/b Ethos Legal Alliance
for the Appellant/Applicant.
Mr.Atul Rajadhyaksha, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Sunip Sen,
Mr.Adil Patel, Ms.Sanika Kulkarni and Mr.Amogh Dabholkar for
Respondent.
CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ
DATE : 24th MARCH 2026
P.C. :
1 The present Interim Application seek condonation of delay
of 55 days in @ling the Appeal being aggrieved by the impugned
Judgment dated 17/02/2023 passed in Notice of Motion in
Commercial Admirality Suit.
RAJSHREE Digitally signed
by RAJSHREE
KISHOR KISHOR MORE
MORE Date: 2026.03.27
11:02:12 +0530
1/4
902-IA-1958-2023.odt
2 We have heard the learned senior Advocate Mr.Narichania
for the Applicant and perused the application.
The Application faces strong objection from the learned
senior Advocate Mr.Rajadhyaksha who would submit that he has
preliminary objection about maintainability of the Appeal under
Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and this
objection ought to have been pronounced before the application
for condonation of delay is to be heard.
3 We do not agree with this submission as we @nd that only if
the delay is condoned, the Appeal become liable to be entertained
and that if objection is raised about its maintainability, it would
be decided at the relevant stage, when the Appeal itself is
registered and taken up for consideration.
4 The Interim Application seeking condonation of 55 days
has speci@cally set out the reasons and we deem it appropriate
reproduce the same :-
“4. The Impugned Order was passed on 17 th February, 2023. The
Applicant applied for certi@ed copy of the Order on 22.02.2023. The
Certi@ed Copy was ready on 24.02.2023 and the Applicant received the
same on 03.03.2023. The above Appeal is being @led on 16.06.2023.
There is thus a delay of 49 days in @ling the above Appeal.
5. Given the quantum of the claim, the matter was referred to the
Ministry of Defence for instructions and further action.
6. As per the extant procedures followed in Court cases of the Indian
Navy, the decision about challenging an Order of a Court is deliberated
at various levels including Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Law and
Justice and only after necessary clearances and approvals from Senior
Of@cers are received from Naval Headquarters, an Order is challenged
or a litigation @led.
2/4
902-IA-1958-2023.odt
7. In the instant case since there are complex issues involved having
@nancial implication, and therefore necessary instructions were also
sought from the Of@cials of Ministry of Finance. It is also respectfully
submitted that the said Of@cers and Senior Of@cials were busy in
certain affairs of national importance and hence there is a delay in
@ling the above Appeal. The decision to challenge the Order was
received on 21 April 2023 and necessary actions were initiated
accordingly. Hence the delay was not wilful, due to any negligence or
mala @de. The Applicant acted as expeditiously as possible, but due to
issues relation to national security, the decision to @le the Appeal was
delayed.”
5 Mr.Narichania in support of the Application would submit
that since there was involvement of the Ministry of Defence, the
Department had to undergo the rigmarole of obtaining necessary
opinions and seeking further approvals before Appeal was to be
instituted and we @nd that suf@cient cause has been made out for
condoning the delay which is of a minuscule period of 55 days.
6 The reliance by Mr. Rajadhyaksha upon the decision in case
of Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs. vs. Karnataka Housing Board and
Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 is not of any succor as though
the proposition of law laid down is that the delay by the
Government or its agencies must also be viewed seriously and
shall not be overlooked merely because a particular procedure
has to be followed and the @le has to be moved from Department
to Department, according to us, the same is not laid down as an
absolute proposition and in any case when an Application for
condonation of delay has to be @led, the Court should be satis@ed
about the genuineness of the explanation that is offered and if the
suf@ciency of the cause convince the Court and in the present
case since we @nd that the delay is of mere 55 days and not of
some years, we are convinced to condone the same, in the wake of
3/4
902-IA-1958-2023.odt
the explanation offered in Para 6 and 7.
Even on testing the bona@des of the reasons that have been
cited, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay.
Interim Application is made absolute in terms of prayer
clause (a).
Needless to state that the objection raised by the learned
senior counsel Mr.Rajadhyaksha about the Appeal being
entertained under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, shall
be duly considered.
[MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.] [BHARATI DANGRE, J.]
4/4
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.