Delhi High Court
Cds Infra Projects Limited vs Reinforced Earth India Private Limited on 30 April, 2025
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~122
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 30.04.2025
+ RFA(COMM) 245/2025
CDS INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED .....APPELLANT
Through: Mr. Ankur Singh & Ms. Himanshi
Sisodiya, Advocates.
versus
REINFORCED EARTH INDIA PRIVATE
LIMITED .....RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Mr. Siddharth
Borah & Ms. Maryam Beg, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 25898/2025 (exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 25897/2025 (condonation of delay)
3. The Appellant has filed the present application seeking condonation
of delay of 172 days in filing the appeal.
4. The judgment and decree against the Appellant was passed on
29.08.2024.
5. The Appellant had applied for a certified copy of the impugned
judgment and decree on 14.11.2024 which was made available on
11.12.2024. It is material to note that when the application for a certified copy
was made, time period for filing the present appeal had already expired.
6. There is no explanation for not filing the present appeal during the
period 29.08.2024 to 14.11.2024.
7. There is no explanation for the delay in moving the application for the
certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree. Concededly, the period
between 29.08.2024 to 14.11.2024 is also required to be considered while
computing the delay in filing the present appeal. Only the period from the date
of application for the certified copy to the date on which it was prepared is
required to be excluded. It is seen that the Appellant has not furnished any
credible explanation for the delay in filing the present appeal.
8. The Respondent claims that after the certified copy became available,
the appeal should have been filed, but the Appellant failed to do so before the
closure of the court for vacation on 25.12.2024. The closure of the court
would not extend the period of limitation in the facts of the present case, as the
period for filing the appeal had already expired before the closure of the court
for winter vacations. The court reopened on 07.01.2025 and the only
explanation furnished by the Appellant for the delay thereafter reads as under:
"5. That unfortunately authorised representative of the
appellant got busy in some very important official work and
thereafter he fallen sick and considerable time elapsed in his
recovery and therefore there is the delay of 172 days in filing the
accompanying appeal."
9. It is clear from the above that the Appellant has failed to furnish any
sufficient cause that prevented him from filing the appeal within the period of
limitation. There is no explanation whatsoever to persuade this Court to
accept that there was sufficient cause for the delay on the part of appellant,
and to condone it.
10. In Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department)
Represented By Executive Engineer v. Borse Brothers Engineers and
Contractors Pvt. Ltd.: (2021) 6 SCC 460, the Supreme Court had explained
that in commercial disputes, the expression „sufficient cause‟ in the context of
delay in filing is not elastic, and inordinate and unexplainable delay ought not
to be condoned. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below: -
"58. Given the object sought to be achieved under both
the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act,
that is, the speedy resolution of disputes, the
expression "sufficient cause" is not elastic enough to
cover long delays beyond the period provided by the
appeal provision itself. Besides, the expression
"sufficient cause" is not itself a loose panacea for the
ill pressing negligent and stale claims...
* * *
63. Given the aforesaid and the object of speedy
disposal sought to be achieved both under the
Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, for
appeals under section 37 of the Arbitration Act that are
governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation
Act or Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act,
a delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days,
respectively, is to be condoned by way of exception
and not by way of rule...."
11. In view of the above, the application for condonation of delay is
rejected.
RFA(COMM) 245/2025 and CM APPL. 25896/2025(Stay)
12. In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed. Pending
application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
TEJAS KARIA, J
APRIL 30, 2025/ 'A'
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
