In Tanishq Agencies & Anr. v. M/s Ventura International Pvt. Ltd., RFA (COMM) 665/2025, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court refused to condone a delay of 1,000 days in filing a commercial appeal, emphasizing that condonation of delay cannot be granted in the absence of diligence on the part of the litigant.
The appeal was filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 challenging an ex-parte judgment and decree dated 21.12.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Commercial Court, District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby the suit filed by the respondent was partially decreed for recovery of ₹8,34,336 along with interest at 10% per annum.
Before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the appellants sought condonation of a delay of 1,000 days in filing the appeal and 14 days in re-filing. It was contended that they were unable to contact their previous counsel during the COVID-19 period and came to know about the ex-parte decree only upon receiving notice in execution proceedings in February 2025.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, however, rejected this explanation, observing that the allegations against the previous counsel were unsupported by any material and no formal action had been taken against the counsel concerned.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court reiterated that condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires a party to demonstrate sufficient cause along with bona fide diligence in pursuing the matter.
Relying on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) v. M/s Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd., the Hon’ble Delhi High Court emphasized that the Commercial Courts Act mandates strict adherence to timelines to ensure speedy disposal of commercial disputes.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court therefore held that an extraordinary delay of 1,000 days could not be condoned in the absence of a credible and convincing explanation.
At the same time, considering a litigant’s substantive right to a first appeal, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court briefly examined the merits of the matter, including the issue of limitation relating to the respondent’s recovery suit.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court clarified that transactions between a buyer and seller do not constitute “mutual accounts” within the meaning of Article 1 of the Limitation Act and that such disputes are governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act.
Accordingly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court refused to condone the delay and disposed of the applications, reiterating that parties in commercial litigation must adhere to statutory timelines and act with due diligence while pursuing their remedies.
