SAIFI CONVEYOR SYSTEM vs SANDEEP GUPTA

Judgment text excerpt

$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA(COMM) 345/2025, CM APPL. 35836/2025 & CM APPL. 35837/2025 SAIFI CONVEYOR SYSTEM .....Appellant Through: Mr. Vikrant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Nahata, Adv. versus SANDEEP GUPTA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA ORDER (ORAL) % 03.02.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. There is a delay of 253 days in re-filing of the present appeal. In commercial matters, this Court has held, in Casablanca Apparels Pvt. Ltd. v. Polo/Lauren Company LP1 that delay in re-filing has also to be properly explained. Besides, in Government of Maharashtra v. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt Ltd2, the Supreme Court has held that Courts have to adopt an extremely strict approach while dealing with applications for condonation of delay. 2. No doubt, delay in re-filing may be entitled to greater latitude than delay in filing, but there has nonetheless be a semblance of an explanation in the application even for this Court to be expansive in that regard. 1 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5191 2 (2021) 6 SCC 460 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT RFA(COMM) 345/2025 Page 1 of 3 KUMAR Signing Date:06.02.2026 12:55:22 3. The only explanation for the delay of 253 days in re-filing the appeal as contained in CM Appl. 35837/2025 is as under: “3. That the Appellant humbly submits that the objections were marked on 30.08.2024. That the Appellant submits that there was a certain delay in obtaining certain relevant information from the Appellant. Meanwhile, there was communication between the Appellant and the previous Counsel in regard to filing of the Appeal and due to poor financial condition of the Appellant, he could not follow up with the earlier advocate, which occ