$~70

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ RFA(COMM) 331/2025, CM APPL. 34907/2025, CM APPL. 34908/2025 & CM APPL. 34909/2025

M S AGGARWAL POLYMERS

INDIA & ANR. .....Appellants

Through: Ms. Ruchi Gupta, Adv.

versus

M S SRI RAM PLASTOCHEM PVT LTD. ....Respondent

Through: Mr. Manish Rathore, Ms. Komal Chhibber and Mr. Sahil Kalra, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 10.11.2025

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

CM APPL. 34909/2025 (Delay of 780 days in filing appeal)

1. This application seeks condonation of an inordinate delay of 780 days in filing RFA (Comm) 331/2025.

2. On the aspect of delay in commercial matters, the Supreme Court has taken an extremely strict view, as is reflected from the following passages from the decision in Government of Maharashtra v Borse Bros. Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd1:

1 (2021) 6 SCC 460

“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 filed 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. In a fit case in which a party has otherwise acted bona fide and not in a negligent manner, a short delay beyond such period can, in the discretion of the court, be condoned, always bearing in mind that the other side of the picture is that the opposite party may have acquired both in equity and justice, what may now be lost by the first party's inaction, negligence or laches.”

3. We, therefore, cannot condone delay as inordinate as 780 days without cogent grounds having been made out by the appellants justifying such condonation.

4. We have heard Ms. Ruchi Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellants at some length on this application. Ms. Gupta’s contention is that fraud had been committed by the respondent and that, where fraud is committed, limitation does not enter the picture. She relies, for this purpose, on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishnu Vardhan v State of UP2.

2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1501

5. We do not deem it necessary to advert to the relevant paragraph from the said decision, as the proposition mooted by Ms. Ruchi Gupta is unexceptional. There can be no doubt about the fact that fraud unravels everything, ecclesiastical as well as temporal, and that, where fraud is found to exist, all equities stand divested. If the respondent had committed a fraud, there can be no doubt about the fact that the appellants might not be hit by limitation.

6. We, therefore, called upon Ms. Gupta to substantiate her

argument that there was fraud committed by the respondent.

7. Ms. Gupta’s only contention, on the basis of which she bases the allegation of fraud, is based on a “certificate of non-starter report” dated 3 December 2020 issued by the North District Legal Services Authority3, which reads as under:

3 “DLSA”, hereinafter

“Ref.334/mediation/comm.-dispute/north/2020 Dated 03.12.2020

Certificate of Non-Starter Report

Name of the applicant: M/s. Sri Ram Plastochem Pvt. Ltd

Date of application for pre-Institution mediation:

02.11.2020.

Name of opposite party: M/s Aggarwal Polymers India &

Ors!

Date scheduled for obtaining consent of opposite party:

19.11.2020, 03.12.2020.

Report made under rule 3(4) or 3(6): Under Rule 3(6).

Non Starter Report reason: Notice/Final Notice served to the respondent and the respondent failed to give consent before this Authority on the fixed date mentioned in the Notice/ Final Notice.

It seems that respondent is not interested in the Pre-Institution Mediation Process.

Sd.

Harjeet Singh Jaspal

Secretary- North District

District Legal Services Authority

Rohini Courts, Delhi.”

8. We may note that the afore-extracted certificate was issued in

view

Click Here to Read the rest of this document