MRS. VARSHA SHAH SOLE PROP.M/S.DYNAMO STAMPING INDUSTRYversusM/S. FIBRO LAMINATION

                                                                                    14_IA_16944_2023.DOC



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16944 OF 2023
                                                       IN
                                        COMMERCIAL AO (ST) NO.25119 OF 2023

                      Varsha Shah
                      Sole Proprietress, M/s. Dynamo Stamping Industry             ...Applicant
                      In the matter between:

PRASAD
                      Varsha Shah
RAJENDRASING
RAJPUT                Sole Proprietress, M/s. Dynamo Stamping Industry             …Plaintiff
Digitally signed by
PRASAD
RAJENDRASING
                             Versus
RAJPUT
Date: 2026.09.05
16:06:49 +0530
                      M/s. Fibro Lamination                                        ...Defendant

                                                            _______


                      Mr Rubin Vakil, Benny Joseph, Abu Usama Shaikh and Siddhesh Kini i/by BJ Law
                      Offices LLP, for Applicant.
                      Mr Dipesh Siroya i/by LIM Legit, for Respondent.
                                                            _______

                                                  CORAM:        G. S. KULKARNI &
                                                                DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

                                                  DATE:         03rd SEPTEMBER 2026

                      P.C.

                      1.       By this Interim Application, the Applicant/Appellant seeks condonation of

                      a 79-day delay in preferring the Commercial Appeal No. 25119 of 2023, which

                      assails the Order dated 20th March 2023, passed by the City Civil Court at

                      Mumbai (C.R. No. 32) in Notice of Motion No. 3860 of 2022, in Commercial

                      Summary Suit No. 306 of 2022, by which the Notice of Motion was allowed, and

                      the plaint was directed to be returned to the Plaintiff for presentation before the

                      Court of competent jurisdiction at Silvassa.



                                                        Page 1 of 4
                      Prasad
                                                                  14_IA_16944_2023.DOC



2.       We have heard to Mr Rubin Vakil, learned Counsel appearing for the

Applicant and Mr Dipesh Siroya, learned Counsel representing the Respondent.


3.       According to Mr. Vakil, the delay in preferring the appeal for the reason that

there were settlement talks between the parties. He submits that although no

settlement agreement was recorded in writing, the parties were in discussions with

an attempt to resolve the disputes amicably. Mr Vakil contended that the

Respondent, in the guise of settlement talks, was delaying the proceedings and,

hence, succumbing to the tactics employed by the Respondent, the Applicant kept

waiting for the settlement to be finalised. Thus, the delay is attributable to the fact

that shortly after the impugned order was passed, negotiations to bring about a

settlement were entered at the instance of the Respondent and that the Applicant

bona-fide believed that a settlement would be reached and being hopeful did not

pursue the remedy of appeal; and that the appeal was lodged once it became

apparent that no settlement would materialise. Additionally, reference is made to

the challenges faced in the Applicant's business that required her attention during

that period.


4.       Mr Siroya brought to our attention the Affidavit in Reply, filed on behalf of

the Respondent, whereby the Respondent has denied that any settlement talks took

place after the impugned order was passed. It is contended that the plea is a bare

one, unsupported by particulars of the dates on which, and the persons between

whom, such talks were held, and is put forward only to make out bona fides. The

Respondent also relies on the proceedings in a connected suit filed by the

Applicant's son and prays that the application be dismissed with costs.

                                    Page 2 of 4
Prasad
                                                                 14_IA_16944_2023.DOC



5.       The Applicant filed a rejoinder Affidavit contesting the Respondent's claim.

The Applicant outrightly rejected the Respondent's objections. The Applicant

stated that settlement talks were initiated on the Respondent's behalf by Mr Mehul

Bagadia, partner of the Respondent, who affirmed the Affidavit in Reply during the

pendency of the suit before the Trial Court. Furthermore, following the impugned

order, the initiative was carried forward by Mr Paras Bagadia, who maintains

ongoing business dealings with the Applicant's son, Mr Janil Shah. It is contended

that the parties met at an exhibition in Dubai held between 7th and 9th March

2023, and subsequently in Berlin on 23rd May 2023, at which the Applicant's

husband, Mr Prakash Shah, and her son were present. These assertions are

substantiated by the gate passes, travel documents, and invoices furnished.

Whether the negotiations were conducted on the alleged terms is not a matter we

are required to decide at this stage. For present purposes, it suffices that the

explanation of the applicant does not appear to be superficial or, on the face of it,

improbable.


6.       The delay is 79 days. Condonation of the delay does not prejudice the

Respondent in any manner. The Respondent’s contentions in the appeal remain

entirely open. The averments in the application, as well as the rejoinder Affidavit,

provide sufficient and satisfactory reasons for the delay. The Applicant has detailed

almost day-to-day reasons for the delay. We are satisfied that the delay in preferring

the present Appeal is inadvertent and bona fide. Considering the aforesaid, we are

of the view that no prejudice will be caused to the Respondent if the delay is

condoned.


                                   Page 3 of 4
Prasad
                                                                14_IA_16944_2023.DOC



7.       We, therefore, pass the following order:


         (a)    The delay of 79 days in preferring Commercial AO (ST) No. 25119
                of 2023 is condoned, subject to the Applicant depositing Rs.10,000/-
                as costs to the Respondent within a period of two weeks from today;

         (b)    The Interim Application is disposed of in the above terms;

         (c)    List Commercial AO (ST) No. 25119 of 2023 on 17th September
                2026.




(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J)                                  (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)




                                    Page 4 of 4
Prasad