Madras HC Rejects Catalyst Trusteeship’s 442-Day Appeal Delay, Saying It Could Not Blame Counsel After Failing To Track Case

Catalyst Trusteeship Limited sought condonation of a 442-day delay in filing appeals against the common order dated 1 February 2023 in A. No. 1433 of 2020 and O.A. No. 230 of 2020, both in C.S. (Comm.) No. 154 of 2020.

It said it had entered appearance through its former counsel in August 2020, who did not file a counter or keep it informed of subsequent proceedings; it claimed to have learned of the order after new counsel sought copies of the case documents.

The Court also noted the affidavit’s statement that the former counsel had informed the petitioner on 21 January 2021 that the matter would be listed on 10 February 2021.

Under the principle of “sufficient cause,” a court may adopt a liberal approach to advance substantial justice, but the applicant must provide justified reasons and material showing that the delay was beyond its control.

In Salil Dutta v. T.M. & M.C. Private Ltd., (1993) 2 SCC 185, the Supreme Court held that an advocate acts as the party’s agent and that a litigant cannot automatically disown counsel or claim relief for counsel’s conduct; the court may grant relief in the interests of justice in appropriate cases, but there is no absolute rule of immunity for a party.

The appeals were stated to be brought under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules, and Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

The Court found that the petitioner’s explanation showed that, after entrusting the matter to counsel in 2020, it had not diligently monitored the case.

The petitioner had been told in January 2021 about a forthcoming listing, yet the impugned order was not passed until February 2023, and the petitioner still did not follow the proceedings.

In the Court’s view, merely instructing counsel did not discharge the litigant’s responsibility to make enquiries and follow the case.

It therefore rejected the unsubstantiated allegations against former counsel as insufficient to establish that the delay was beyond the petitioner’s control.

It dismissed both condonation petitions and, consequently, rejected the connected original-side appeals.

No costs were ordered.