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. 1/4 RAJSHREE KISHOR MORE Digitally signed by RAJSHREE KISHOR MORE Date: 2026.03.27 11:02:12 +0530 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 17th 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