Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Shirdi Sai Medical Agency vs Deepa Raghav on 9 May, 2025
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA(COMM) 145/2024 CM APPL. 57065/2024
M/S SHIRDI SAI MEDICAL AGENCY .....APPELLANT
Through: Mr Chirag Madan, Advocate.
versus
DEEPA RAGHAV .....RESPONDENT
Through: Mr Pinaki Addy, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
ORDER
% 09.05.2025
CM APPL. 23330/2024
1. The appellant has filed the present application seeking condonation of delay of 172 days in filing the above-captioned appeal. It is the appellant's case that the impugned judgment was rendered on 11.08.2023, his counsel did not apply for the certified copy of the impugned judgment. The only explanation furnished by the appellant for the inordinate delay is that the appellant had suffered a pro-lapse disk bulge (which affected L4 and L5 of the spinal cord as well as Sciatic Nerve of the appellant) in the month of August, 2023. It is stated that since the appellant was suffering from medical illness, he was unable to pursue the remedies in accordance with law. The relevant extract of the appellant's application setting out the reasons for delay is reproduced below:
"3. The Ld. Counsel representing the Appellant before the Ld. Trial Court informed the Appellant that he will apply certified copy of the Impugned Judgment dated 11.08.2023 and post This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 23:16:35 receipt of the same will file the Appeal in accordance with law. However, the same was not done.
4. Pursuant whereof, in the month of August, 2023 the Appellant suffered from pro-lapse disk bulge (which affected the L4 and L5 of the spinal cord as well as Sciatic Nerve of Appellant). Thus, the Appellant could not contact the Ld. Counsel representing the Appellant before the Ld. Trial Court. Copy of the documents pertaining to medical illness of the Appellant are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-8.
5. Since, the Appellant was suffering from the medical illness as mentioned hereinabove, thus, was unable to pursue the remedies available under law. Post recovery, the Appellant contact the undersigned / Counsel and upon perusal of the findings as mentioned in the Impugned Order / Judgment dated 11.08.2023, the Appellant sought explanation from the Ld. Counsel representing Appellant before the Ld. Trial Court vis-à-vis handling of the Said Case in casual manner, however, no satisfactory answer was provided to the Appellant.
6. xxxx xxxx xxxx
7. On 29.02.2024, the Appellant approached the undersigned Counsel in order to pursue the remedies available with him in accordance with law and post inspection of the documents. Accordingly, the undersigned Counsel applied for certified copies of the relevant documents in order to pursue the remedy of Appeal as available in accordance with law.
8. That the certified copy of the relevant documents were made available to the Ld. Counsel of the Appellant on 23.03.2024. Immediately thereafter, the present Regular First Appeal is preferred / filed by the Appellant."
2. The respondent has stoutly contested the aforesaid application and has filed a copy of the order-sheet dated 13.09.2023 in Ct. Cases 10556 of 2018 captioned Deepa Raghav v. Pradeep Kumar. The said order-sheet indicates that the appellant [the accused in the said case] was present in person.
3. Thus, it is established that till 13.09.2023, the appellant was mobile and was attending court proceedings. In the circumstances, the appellant's This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 23:16:35 contention that he was unable to contact his counsel as he had taken ill in August, 2023 is difficult to accept. The appellant has produced certain medical documents indicating that he was suffering from certain spinal issues and was advised bed-rest, however, this does not explain his inability to contact the counsel or take steps for filing the present appeal. We are inclined to accept the respondent's contention that the explanation for the delay is contrived and does not merit acceptance.
4. The strict timelines are stipulated in the matters involving Commercial Court disputes and it would defeat the legislative intent if inordinate delays in filing the appeals are liberally condoned.
5. We also consider it apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented By Executive Engineer v. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd.: (2021) 6 SCC 460, wherein the Supreme Court explained that it would not be apposite to accept that expression 'sufficient cause' was not expansive to cover inordinate delays in matters of delay in filing appeals under Section 37 of the A&C Act or under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. 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 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 23:16:35 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...."
6. In view of the above, we are unable to accept that the delay in the present case is required to be condoned. The application is accordingly dismissed.
RFA(COMM) 145/2024 and CM APPL. 57065/2024
7. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as well. The pending applications are also disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J MAY 09, 2025/tr Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 23:16:35