Delays beyond prescribed periods in commercial appeals can be condoned only in exceptional cases, requiring demonstration of bona fides and absence of negligence by the appellants.

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

CM APPL. 72307/2024 (delay)

1. By this application, the appellant in RFA(Comm) 532/2024 seeks condonation of delay of 195 days in filing the present appeal, which has been preferred under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against a judgment dated 23 March 2024 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial-08), Tis Hazari Courts, ["learned Commercial Court” hereinafter].

2. As the earlier application filed for condonation of delay did not contain sufficient particulars, Mr. Jaitley, learned Counsel for the appellant, sought and was granted permission to file an additional affidavit explaining the delay of 195 days in preferring the appeal. He has done so.

3. We deem it appropriate to reproduce paras 16 to 22 of the affidavit thus, as the earlier paragraphs deal with the merits of the matter:

“16. That Defendant No.1 (Late Mr. Dinesh Gupta) would look after the day to day affairs, take key decisions over vital aspects for course of business including trademark and copyright related subject with respect to Appellant Company (Defendant No.3) and Defendant No.4-Partnerhsip Firm, until his lifetime/date of demise- 08.07.2022. It was only after such passing of impugned Final Order and Judgment dated 23.03.2024 being challenged herein under Appeal, that the Defendant No.2 (Ms. Komal Gupta) was required to look after the day to day affairs and take such key decisions on her own i.e. without the able guidance of her late husband- Defendant No. 1 (Late Mr. Dinesh Gupta) who would have otherwise looked into the day to day affairs, take key decisions with respect to ‘VICTORIA CROSS’ / ‘VICTORIACROSS’ through the related entities and Defendant No.2 (Ms. Komal Gupta) would only discharge necessary obligations and fiduciary duties as being included in the setup as part of business structure being controlled by family. It is apposite to highlight that Ms. Komal Gupta was appointed as Partner and Director in concerned Entities i.e. Partnership Firm (Defendant No.4) and Appellant- Company for the reasons of being a family member i.e. wife of Defendant no.1 (Late Mr. Dinesh Gupta), and had at all times acted only in discharge of necessary obligations and fiduciary duties in consultation with Defendant No.1.

17. That it is necessary to outline, that even though the demise of Defendant No.1-Late Mr. Dinesh Gupta occurred on 08.07.2022 but its serious implications and consequences were felt only after passing of such impugned final order and judgment dated 23.03.2024 as there prevailed exparte ad-interim injunction against all the Defendants, including the Appellant from 30.07.2019 till the date of passing of the impugned final order and judgment dated 23.03.2024. Quite notably, from 30.07.2019 to 23.03.2024 (almost 5 years), no business operations, no usage of the trademark, and no day-to-day functioning with respect to usage of ‘ Victoria Cross / Victoria Cross’ took place by any of the related entities in Defendant No. 1 to 4 to Suit Proceedings, resulting in a prolonged period of non- operations. However, once the impugned final order and judgment dated 23.03.2024 was passed, decisions with respect to deciding upon the affairs of the Appellant and related entities of ‘VICTORIA CROSS’/ ‘VICTORIACROSS?’, had to be made and this was the very first instance wherein Defendant No.2- Ms. Komal Gupta was compelled to look into the affairs and take decisions on her own owing to demise of Late Mr. Dinesh Gupta.

18. That subsequent to passing of impugned final order and judgment dated 23.03.2024, the Defendant No.2-Ms. Komal Gupta on account of l