M/S Yes Sir Catering Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Prehlad Rai Garg

Court
Delhi High Court

$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
Date of decision: 3 September, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 7 September, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010116602026
+ RFA(COMM) 179/2026, CM APPL. 18782/2026 & CM APPL.
18783/2026

M/S YES SIR CATERING SERVICES PVT. LTD......APPELLANT
Through: Mr. Ayush Mittal, Mr. Honey Gola &
Ms. Mehak Sharma, Advs. (M:
8700319650)

versus

PREHLAD RAI GARG .....RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Adv.

CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN


Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. This is an appeal filed by the Appellant challenging the impugned
rd
judgment dated 3 January, 2023 passed by the ld. District Judge
(Commercial Court), Karkardooma Courts, by which a decree has been
passed against the Appellant/Defendant in the following terms:
“38. Issue No. 7:-
'Relief'
In view of detailed discussion on the aforesaid
issues, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in his
favour and against the defendant for a sum of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:07.09.2026
17:32:22
RFA(COMM) 179/2026 Page 1 of 6

Rs. 7,74,738.77/- alongwith interest@ 6% p.a.
from 01.08.2018 till realization alongwith costs
of the suit. The decree sheet be prepared
accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after
compliance of necessary legal formalities as per
rules.”

3. The present appeal has been filed with substantial delay. The date of
rd
the impugned judgment is 3 January, 2023 and the appeal has been filed in
March, 2026.
th
4. On 9 April, 2026, the Court was not inclined to condone the delay,
however, in order to see the bonafides of the Appellant, the principal amount
was directed to be tendered for sum of Rs. 7,74,738.77/-.
5. On the next date i.e., 22nd April, 2026, the Appellant had appeared and
submitted that he needed one more month to make the payment in terms of
the order dated 9th April, 2026. Accordingly, the execution petition was
directed to be adjourned beyond the next date.
th
6. Thereafter, on 7 July, 2026, the Appellant had handed over a demand
draft for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the Respondent and further direction was
issued for paying a further sum of Rs.2,50,000/- by the next date of hearing
rd
i.e., 3 September, 2026.
7. Today, no amount has been tendered by the Appellant. Various medical
grounds are relied upon to argue that the Appellant is unable to make the
payment but he prays for further time.
8. As can be seen from the application for condonation of delay itself, the
delay in filing this appeal is more than one thousand days. The only ground
given is the medical record of the Appellant wherein it is submitted that the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:07.09.2026
17:32:22
RFA(COMM) 179/2026 Page 2 of 6

Appellant was suffering from some medical issues.
9. The Supreme Court in Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources
Department) Represented By Executive Engineer v. Borse Brothers
Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd., (2021) 6 SCC 460, observed as under:
“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 of pressing
negligent and stale claims.
xxxx
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. ”

10. Thus, condonation of delay in commercial appeals is the exception and
not the rule.
11. Further, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Delco Infrastructure
Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. V. Intec Capital Ltd. & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:07.09.2026
17:32:22
RFA(COMM) 179/2026 Page 3 of 6

Del 2158 has also refused to condone delay in the following terms:
“10. In N.V. International v. State of Assam, (2020) 2
SCC 109, the Supreme Court had taken a view that the
delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Act
cannot be condoned beyond a period of thirty days.
However, this decision was overruled by the Supreme
Court in a subsequent decision in Government of
Maharashtra (Water Resources Department)
Represented By Executive Engineer v. Borse Brothers
Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd., (2021) 6 SCC 460.
The Supreme Court held that the power of the court to
condone the delay in filing the appeal under Section
37(1) of the Act was not restricted to a period of thirty
days as specified under the proviso to Section 34(3) of
the A&C Act. However, the Supreme Court also
observed as under:

“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 of pressing negligent and stale claims.....
xxxx
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.....

11. It is essential to adhere to time lines in matters
involving commercial disputes. Any delay in filing
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:07.09.2026
17:32:22
RFA(COMM) 179/2026 Page 4 of 6

appeals under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 cannot be condoned unless the court
is satisfied that the appellants were prevented from
sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the
stipulated time. The court must be satisfied that such
cause is genuine and not an illusion to disguise lack of
diligence.
12. In the facts of the present case, we are unable to
accept that the appellants have shown any sufficient
cause for condoning the delay in filing the present
appeal.”

12. In the above decision, the Court has clearly held that where the reasons
for delay are not genuine, the same does not deserve to be condoned. The
Court has further held that delay in commercial appeals can be condoned only
upon the Court being satisfied that the Appellants were prevented by
sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the stipulated period.
13. The provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 prescribe strict
timelines for filing of pleadings and appeals. The intention behind the same
is to ensure speedy disposal of commercial matters. The legislative intention
cannot be defeated by permitting parties to violate the timelines, without
sufficient cause.
14. The Court has considered the said medical records and the reasons for
delay. The medical records of the Appellant relate to March, 2023, June, 2023,
August, 2023 and November, 2023.
15. The Appellant is stated to have undergone knee surgery during the year
2023. In the year 2024, the only prescriptions placed on record are from
homeopathy clinics.
16. In the opinion of this Court, these records are insufficient to constitute
a sufficient cause for the long period of delay of three years in the filing of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:07.09.2026
17:32:22
RFA(COMM) 179/2026 Page 5 of 6

this appeal. Further, no sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the
delay, in terms of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which
clearly prescribes that the appeal would be liable to be filed within a period
of 60 days.
17. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay. Pending
applications, if any, are also disposed of.
18. The Respondent is free to execute the impugned decree in accordance
with law. The amount of Rs.2,50,000/- paid during the course of this appeal
shall be considered as part-payment of the principal amount.


PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE


VIKAS MAHAJAN
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 3, 2026/MR/Ck
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:07.09.2026
17:32:22
RFA(COMM) 179/2026 Page 6 of 6