Madras High Court
Danush Interiors & Contractors vs Aci Wonderwood Products on 27 January, 2025
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
C.M.P.No.1493 of 2025 and
Appeal (CAD) No.SR167041 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.01.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
C.M.P.No.1493 of 2025
and Appeal (CAD) No.SR 167041 of 2024
Danush Interiors & Contractors
No.60, Old No.146
Eldams Road, Teynampet
Chennai – 600 018. .. Petitioner/
Appellant
Vs
ACI Wonderwood Products
Rep. by its Managing Partner/
Authorised Signatory, M.Raghuraman
Plot No.19, 10 th Street, A.V.Nagar
Phase I, Madanandapuram, Porur
Chennai – 600 116. .. Respondent
Prayer in C.M.P.No.1493 of 2025: Petition under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act to condone the delay of 369 days in filing the appeal against
the decree passed in O.S.No.1395 of 2022 on the file of the Commercial
Court at Chennai.
__________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.1493 of 2025 and
Appeal (CAD) No.SR167041 of 2024
Prayer : Appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
against the judgment and decree dated 12.9.2023 rendered in
C.O.S.No.1395 of 2022 on the file of the Commercial Court at Egmore,
Chennai.
For Petitioner/ : Mr.Ajoy Kumar Gnanam
Appellant
For Respondent : No appearance
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The application is to condone the delay of 369 days.
2. Admittedly, application for the impugned judgment dated
12.9.2023 was made on 14.9.2023. Copy was made ready on 5.10.2023
and advocate collected on 11.10.2023. Appeal has been lodged on
4.12.2024 with a delay of 369 days.
3. In paragraph 15, it is stated that the affiant, who is the Proprietor
of the applicant/firm, is a cardiac patient and suffered discomfiture from
November month to middle of January month and had to take medical
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.1493 of 2025 and
Appeal (CAD) No.SR167041 of 2024
treatment. What was the cardiac issue; when did the proprietor have
discomfiture; whether the proprietor was suffering everyday from
discomfiture is not mentioned. It is further stated that proprietor went to
his native place after the above treatment, where he was afflicted with
severe jaundice from February, 2024 and was unable to give instructions to
his advocate. It is stated he was taking native treatment for jaundice and
his ill-health continued for a considerable period and he was not able to
meet his advocate and give instructions.
Affiant received a bailiff notice on 7.11.2024 in an execution petition
filed for arrest. It was posted for 8.11.2024 and that is the time affiant
realised he has to challenge the decree and rushed to instruct his advocate.
4. Apart from bald averments, there is nothing in the affidavit. How
long did the so-called jaundice continue, nobody knows. There is no
evidence to fortify that proprietor really suffered from jaundice. There is no
evidence even for the so-called cardiac issue and discomfiture suffered. He
does not say that throughout he did not do anything and suffered. It is
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.1493 of 2025 and
Appeal (CAD) No.SR167041 of 2024
rather obvious that applicant has woken up and approached this court only
in view of the execution petition filed.
5. Very recently, in Mool Chandra v. Union of India1 , the Apex
Court held as under:
“20. ... It is not the length of delay that would be required
to be considered while examining the plea for condonation
of delay, it is the cause for delay which has been
propounded will have to be examined. If the cause for delay
would fall within the four corners of 'sufficient cause',
irrespective of the length of delay same deserves to be
condoned. However, if the cause shown is insufficient,
irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be
condoned.”
[emphasis supplied]
6. In the case on hand, no plausible explanation has been given to
justify the delay. The cause shown is insufficient. The applicant remained
nonchalant despite having obtained the order copy on 11.10.2023 and we
do not find the explanation offered to fall within the four corners of
“sufficient cause”.
7. Though we have a lot to say on the merits of the matter itself, we,
however, refrain from saying so at this point.
1 (2025) 1 SCC 625
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.1493 of 2025 and
Appeal (CAD) No.SR167041 of 2024
As we are not satisfied that the delay has been satisfactorily
explained, application is dismissed. Consequently, Appeal (CAD)
No.SR167041 of 2024 is rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.
(K.R.SHRIRAM, C.J.) (SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.)
27.01.2025
Index : Yes/No
NC : Yes/No
sasi
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.1493 of 2025 and
Appeal (CAD) No.SR167041 of 2024
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.
(sasi)
and Appeal (CAD) No.SR 167041 of 2024
27.01.2025
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
