Delay in filing commercial appeals is condoned only exceptionally upon proof of genuine sufficient cause.

The appellant challenged the judgment dated 3 January 2023 of the District Judge (Commercial Court), Karkardooma Courts, which decreed the respondent’s suit for ₹7,74,738.77, with interest at 6% per annum from 1 August 2018 until realization, along with costs.

The appeal was filed in March 2026, involving a delay of more than 1,000 days. The appellant sought condonation of delay primarily on medical grounds, relying on medical records relating to treatment during 2023 and 2024.

During the appellate proceedings, the Court directed the appellant to tender the principal amount to demonstrate bona fides. The appellant paid ₹2,50,000 by demand draft but failed to make the further payment directed by the Court.

Whether the delay of more than 1,000 days in filing the commercial appeal could be condoned on the medical grounds urged by the appellant?

Whether the appellant had demonstrated “sufficient cause” and bona fides warranting condonation of delay under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015?

Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 prescribes a period of 60 days for filing an appeal from a judgment or order of a Commercial Court, and delay may be condoned only where sufficient cause is established.

In Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) v. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd., (2021) 6 SCC 460, the Supreme Court held that, having regard to the objective of speedy resolution of commercial disputes, “sufficient cause” is not an elastic expression capable of covering long and negligent delays; delay beyond the prescribed period is to be condoned by way of exception and not as a rule.

The Court also relied on Delco Infrastructure Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Intec Capital Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2158, which held that delay in commercial appeals cannot be condoned unless the asserted cause is genuine and demonstrates that the appellant was prevented from filing the appeal within the prescribed period.

The Court found that the appellant had failed to explain the extraordinary delay of more than three years. The medical records showed treatment in March, June, August and November 2023, including knee surgery during 2023, while the records for 2024 consisted only of prescriptions from homeopathy clinics.

These materials did not establish that the appellant was continuously prevented from filing the appeal within the statutory period. The appellant’s failure to comply with the Court’s directions to tender the remaining principal amount further undermined the claim of bona fides.

Applying the strict approach mandated for commercial appeals, the Court held that the medical circumstances did not constitute sufficient cause for condoning such a long delay.

The appeal was consequently dismissed on the ground of delay, without examination of the merits of the underlying decree. The pending applications were also disposed of. The respondent was permitted to execute the decree in accordance with law, and the ₹2,50,000 paid during the appeal was directed to be treated as part-payment of the principal amount.