AND

I.A.No.1 of 2025

IN/AND

COMCA.No.16 of 2025

Mr.Venkat Prasad Ukkalam, learned counsel for the appellant.

Ms.Pragathi Mandapalle, learned counsel representing Mr.B.Bharath Reddy.

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. I.A.No.1 of 2025 is an application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 141 days in filing of the Commercial Court

Appeal.

2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant

as well as the respondent.

3. The Appeal arises out of a judgment dated 04.11.2024 passed by the learned Principal Special Court in the cadre of District Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, at Hyderabad (‘Commercial Court’) in a petition filed by the appellant

under section 9 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

4. The Commercial Court dismissed the said petition by the

impugned order dated 04.11.2024.

5. The application for condonation of delay gives four dates in the affidavit filed in support of the Application for condonation of delay.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Counsel for the respondent takes strong objection to the delay being condoned. 7. 08.11.2024 has been mentioned as the first date that is the date when appellant applied for a Certified Copy of the impugned order. The Certified Copy was made ready on 03.12.2024, which is the second date. The other two dates are May, 2017 and 01.01.2018 whereby the Chairman of the appellant Company underwent surgery in Singapore and underwent second procedure in Hyderabad, respectively.

8. The present Appeal was filed on 09.06.2025 i.e., after a delay of almost six months.

9. The affidavit does not contain any other particulars or explanation with regard to the delay between 08.11.2024 and 09.06.2025 i.e., the date on which the Copy Application was filed and the date on which the present Appeal was filed.

10. May, 2017 and January, 2018 in that sense are wholly irrelevant to the delay in filing of the Appeal since the impugned order is of 04.11.2024. Moreover, the surgery undergone by the Managing Director of the appellant is also not relevant since Mr.A.K.Agarwal is the authorised signatory of the appellant.

11. The Court is also informed that the arbitration between the parties was ongoing in June, 2025 which belies the reasons for the appellant’s inaction.

12. Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 contemplates Applications and Appeals being admitted beyond the prescribed period of limitation subject to the Court being satisfied on the sufficiency of cause for the delay. No such explanation has been given in the present Application in terms of sufficiency or otherwise for the cause for delay.

13. The Supreme Court in Government of Maharashtra Vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited [(2021) 6 SCC 460] held in unequivocal terms that the object of both The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is speedy disposal of disputes and that delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days under the said Acts must be condoned by way of exception and not otherwise. Borse Brothers (supra) held that the bona fides of the party or whether the party has been negligent would be of vital consideration for exercise of discretion of the Court for condoning the delay.

14. The present Application does not satisfy any of the conditions mentioned in Borse Brothers. The appellant has not made any attempt whatsoever in assigning sufficient grounds for delay of 141 days in filing of the Appeal

15. I.A.No.1 of 2025 in/and COMCA.No.16 of 2025 is accordingly rejected. No costs.

_________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J ______________________________ B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J

14^th July, 2025.

BMS AND I.A.No.1 of 2025 IN/AND COMCA.No.16 of 2025

14^th July, 2025.

BMS