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