Condonation of delay in commercial appeals is an exception, requiring genuine sufficient cause beyond prescribed timelines.

The Appellant challenged the judgment dated August 28, 2024, passed by the Commercial Court, Dwarka, which decreed a suit against him for Rs. 8,43,580/- plus interest.

The Trial Court rejected the Appellant’s defense that the Respondent had stolen and misused a blank signed cheque, citing the improbability of such a claim and the Appellant's failure to take timely legal action.

The current appeal was filed with a delay of 176 days.

Furthermore, the Appellant failed to comply with a previous interim order of the High Court requiring a 50% deposit of the decretal amount.

1. Whether the delay of 176 days in filing the appeal under the Commercial Courts Act can be condoned based on the grounds of a family member's brief hospitalization?

2. Whether the Trial Court’s findings on the merits of the suit regarding the alleged theft of a cheque warrant interference?

Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which prescribes a strict 60-day limitation period for filing appeals.

The doctrine from Government of Maharashtra v. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. (2021), which established that "sufficient cause" in commercial matters is not elastic and condonation of delay beyond the prescribed period is an exception, not the rule.

Delco Infrastructure Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Intec Capital Ltd. (2025), reinforcing that causes for delay must be genuine and not a disguise for lack of diligence.

The Court found that the Appellant failed to provide a "sufficient cause" for the 176-day delay. The only explanation offered—the hospitalization of the Appellant's wife—occurred after the 60-day limitation period had already expired, leaving the initial delay since August 2024 unexplained.

Following the objective of "speedy resolution" mandated by the Commercial Courts Act as interpreted in Borse Brothers, the Court held that a delay of this magnitude cannot be condoned where a party has acted negligently.

The Court noted the Appellant's lack of bona fides evidenced by the non-compliance with the 50% deposit condition.

On merits, the Court briefly reviewed the Trial Court's reasoning regarding the improbable defense of the stolen cheque and found no ground for interference.

The Court dismissed the appeal and all pending applications.

The Respondent was granted liberty to proceed with the execution of the decree in accordance with the law.