Administrative lethargy and counsel’s failure to monitor proceedings do not constitute sufficient cause to condone delay.

Amulya Enterprises obtained a decree in its commercial suit against IRCTC.

The appellant filed this appeal on 19 November 2024, 92 days late, and sought condonation of delay.

It relied on the time taken to obtain certified copies and head-office approval, counsel’s mistaken belief that judgment would again be adjourned, a bereavement in counsel’s family, and advice to await the outcome of a related appeal.

The respondent opposed condonation, contending that the affidavits did not adequately explain the delay.

Whether the appellant established sufficient cause to condone the 92-day delay in filing the commercial appeal

Whether the appellant’s reliance on adjournments in pronouncing judgment, administrative approval, counsel’s bereavement, or a pending related appeal justified condonation

Under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the applicable limitation period for a commercial appeal is 60 days; under Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) v. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors (P) Ltd., delay beyond that period is condonable only exceptionally, where the party acted bona fide and without negligence.

“Sufficient cause” requires an adequate explanation showing diligence and absence of negligence or lack of bona fides; limitation cannot be extended on equitable grounds alone.

Administrative file movement, without a reasonable and particularised explanation of bona fide efforts, does not by itself constitute sufficient cause, and public authorities are bound to pursue remedies diligently.

A litigant must explain the relevant course of events and take timely steps to monitor proceedings and obtain the judgment; administrative laxity alone is insufficient.

Although earlier adjournments could explain counsel’s mistaken impression on the judgment date, the appellant did not explain why it failed to verify the result afterward; the certified copies were sought only on 18 July 2024, more than a month after judgment.

Nor did the affidavits state when the appeal proposal was submitted, what steps followed, or when head-office approval was obtained.

The bereavement was not linked by particulars to the filing delay, and the pending related appeal did not prevent timely filing.

The asserted merits of the appeal could not substitute for sufficient cause.

It dismissed I.A. No. 1/2026 seeking condonation and, consequently, dismissed the appeal.

Pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.