Condonation of inordinate delay in commercial appeals requires showing exceptional circumstances and bona fide conduct.

The Appellants, former employees of the Respondent company, started a competing business using the marks "C4S" and a logo deceptively similar to the Respondent's registered "G4S" marks

A suit for permanent injunction was filed in 2018, and an interim injunction was granted on July 9, 2018; however, the Appellants failed to comply for nearly five years, necessitating two contempt petitions

The Appellants eventually complied in 2023, and the learned Single Judge passed a judgment on February 23, 2024, granting a permanent injunction and awarding ₹15,00,000/- in damages

The Appellants filed the present appeal with a delay of 688 days, citing financial distress and a strategic decision to avoid depositing the decretal amount

1. Whether the delay of 688 days in filing the commercial appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

2. Whether the award of ₹15,00,000/- as nominal damages was justified without a full trial, given the ex-employee status and the duration of infringement

The Court applied Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, regarding the condonation of delay.

It relied on the precedent set in Government of Maharashtra v. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd., which established that "sufficient cause" must be construed strictly to ensure the expeditious disposal of commercial disputes, making condonation beyond the 60-day period an exception rather than the rule

Regarding damages, the Court exercised discretionary powers under the Commercial Courts Act to award nominal/actual costs for intellectual property infringement

The Court found that the 688-day delay was inordinate and lacked "sufficient cause." It noted that the Appellants made a "conscious decision" not to appeal earlier to avoid the financial burden of the decree, which does not constitute a valid legal ground for condonation

On the merits, the Court observed that the Appellants’ adoption of the mark was "clearly dishonest" as they were former employees of the Respondent

Despite the lack of a full trial, the Court held that the Single Judge correctly assessed damages based on the Appellants’ turnover (₹3 crores) and the five-year duration of the infringement despite an interim injunction

The Court viewed the ₹15 lakh award as "nominal" relative to the prolonged wrongful use and the Respondent’s actual legal costs of ₹32 lakhs

It held that the grounds for delay were neither satisfactory nor justified

The Court upheld the award of ₹15,00,000/- in damages but modified the decree to include a direction that if the amount is not paid within two weeks, the Appellants shall be liable to pay interest at 18% per annum effective from the date of the original decree (February 23, 2024)