Delhi High Court Refuses To Condone 1,000-Day Delay In Commercial Appeal, Cites Lack Of Diligence By Appellant

The Division bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul observed that,

“This is especially so due to the object of the Commercial Courts Act in ensuring strict adherence of timelines by parties to facilitate the speedy disposal of suits, coupled with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) represented by Executive Engineer v. M/s Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors P Ltd."

The appeal was filed by Tanishq Agencies against Ventura International Pvt Ltd, challenging an ex-parte decree dated December 21, 2022 passed by a commercial court.

Tanishq sought condonation of the delay, claiming that it was unable to contact its previous counsel during the COVID-19 period and only became aware of the decree when execution proceedings were initiated in February 2025.

However, the court categorically rejected this plea.

The bench held that “sufficient cause to condone delay cannot exist in the absence of diligence shown on the part of a litigant.”

The Court observed that the Commercial Courts Act was enacted to ensure strict adherence to timelines for speedy disposal of commercial disputes, and an extraordinary delay of 1,000 days could not be excused on vague grounds.

Even though the court refused condonation, the court examined the substantive issues of the appeal, acknowledging a litigant's right to a first appeal.

One major issue was whether the respondent's recovery suit was barred by limitation. The trial court had applied Article 1 of the Limitation Act (mutual accounts), but the High Court clarified that buyer–seller dealings are not “mutual accounts.” Instead, Article 113 (residual) governs such suits.

Since the last payment was made on 17 May 2016, the limitation expired on 17 May 2019. The suit filed on 23 May 2019 was within time only because the pre-institution mediation period was excluded under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.

Another issue was the appellants' claim of non‑service of mediation notices. The Court rejected this, holding that the non‑starter report issued by the District Legal Services Authority was a statutory document recording service and non‑appearance and could not be vitiated by mere allegations of fraud.

For Appellants: Advocate Amish Tiwari

For Respondents: Advocate Karan Sinha