Bombay High Court
PRATHMESH GAMBHIRversusSALIL KUNTE
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court condoned the 26‑day delay and allowed the interim application.
Summary
The petitioner, Prathmesh Gambhir, filed a Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 18154 of 2024 26 days beyond the prescribed time and moved an interim application seeking condonation of the delay. No written opposition was filed; the respondent’s counsel, while opposing orally, did not dispute the established Supreme Court principles governing condonation applications. The Court examined the memo, noted that the delay was not gross, and found the reasons provided by the petitioner to constitute a sufficient cause. Relying on the well‑settled jurisprudence, the Court held that the petitioner would not be rendered remediless if the delay were not condoned. Consequently, the Court exercised its discretion in the interest of justice and granted the condonation, allowing the interim application as prayed for.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 26 days in filing a Commercial Arbitration Petition can be condoned under Supreme Court jurisprudence.
- Whether the petitioner would suffer prejudice or be rendered remediless if the delay is not condoned.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- commercial arbitration
- interim application
- procedural law
- Supreme Court precedents
Judgment
44-IA-7903-25.DOC
JYOTI
RAJESH
MANE
Digitally signed by
JYOTI RAJESH
MANE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Date: 2026.09.24
14:18:54 +0530 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7903 OF 2025
IN
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 18154 OF 2024
Prathmesh Gambhir ...Applicant/ Petitioner
Versus
Salil Kunte ...Respondent
_______
Mr. Suyash Gadre, for Applicant/Petitioner.
Mr. Rajat Dedhia, for Respondent.
_______
CORAM: AARTI SATHE, J.
DATE: 23 SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.
1. This is an interim application filed on behalf of the Applicant/Petitioner
praying for condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid Commercial Arbitration
Petition. The delay is of 26 days.
2. There is no written opposition filed to the present Application.Mr. Rajat
Dedhia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, although orally
opposing the Application vehemently, would not dispute the well-settled position
in law, as laid down in a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court, with regard to
the principles to be followed while considering an application for condonation of
delay. In particular, he would not dispute that, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, as set out in the memo of the Application, the Applicant ought not to
Page 1 of 2
Mane
44-IA-7903-25.DOC
suffer or be rendered remediless in pursuing the present Petition.
3. In the aforesaid circumstances, having perused the memo of the Application
and considering the period of delay not being very gross, in my opinion, the
reasons as set out certainly provide for an appropriate justification and a sufficient
cause shown by the Applicant in regard to the delay in filing the Application. It is
hence in the interest of justice that the delay is condoned.
4. The Interim Application is hence allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
(AARTI SATHE, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Mane
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.