The Allahabad High Court has given relief to M/s Jay Chemical Works by condoning a 154-day delay in filing its commercial appeal against M/s Sai Chemicals. The matter, which came before Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, revolved around whether the company had offered “sufficient cause” for filing the case late.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a 2020 commercial suit filed in Kanpur Nagar, where the trial court had, in September 2024, ordered the plaint to be returned under procedural rules. Jay Chemical Works challenged this decision in April 2025, well beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The company attributed the delay to the ill health of its proprietor, Jay Kumar, and a change of legal counsel, which allegedly led to late discovery of the trial court’s order.
The respondent, Sai Chemicals, strongly objected, claiming that Jay Kumar was active in other related cases during the same period and even filed an affidavit in January 2025. According to their counsel, this proved he was aware of the court proceedings and could not take shelter under illness or lack of knowledge.
Read also:- Supreme Court Reduces Jail Term of 75-Year-Old Widow in Corruption Case, Increases Fine
In contrast, senior advocate Govind Singh, appearing for Jay Chemical, relied on medical records and stressed that the delay was not intentional. He urged the court to consider that another connected appeal in a similar matter had been filed within time. He argued, “Since identical orders are under challenge, one cannot be rejected merely because of a technical delay.”
The bench referred to past Supreme Court judgments which emphasised that the phrase “sufficient cause” under the Limitation Act should be interpreted liberally to ensure justice. Commenting on the present case, the judges remarked, “The medical prescriptions and reports appended to the application seeking condonation of delay cannot be ignored. The plea of physical ailments appears cogent and worth believing.”
Read also:- Delhi HC Dismisses Daughter-in-Law's Appeal, Upholds Mother-in-Law's Property Rights
The court also noted that rejecting this delayed appeal while hearing a connected one on similar facts would be unfair. “The cause shown for delay in filing the present appeal is found to be sufficient and satisfactory,” the bench held.
By condoning the delay, the court has ensured that both the appeals – one timely and the other delayed - will now be heard together on merits. The matter has been listed for further hearing on 13 August 2025.
This decision underlines the judiciary’s approach that justice should not be defeated solely because of procedural technicalities, especially when genuine reasons are put forth. For businesses engaged in commercial disputes, the ruling reinforces the importance of balancing timeliness with fairness in litigation.
Case Title: M/s Jay Chemical Works Vs. M/s Sai Chemicals
Case Number:Commercial Appeal Defective No. 1 of 2025
