In Tanishq Agencies v Ventura International Pvt Ltd (RFA(COMM) 665/2025), decided on 27 February 2026, the Delhi High Court refused to condone a delay of nearly 1,000 days in filing a commercial appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The appeal arose from an ex parte money decree passed in favour of Ventura International Pvt Ltd for recovery of dues relating to the supply of architectural interior goods. The appellants attributed the delay to negligence and unavailability of their previous counsel, including the COVID-19 period. The Division Bench held that no “sufficient cause” was shown, emphasising the strict limitation regime applicable to commercial disputes. Even while declining condonation, the Court examined the appeal on merits and found no ground for interference. It clarified that Article 1 of the Limitation Act applies only to mutual, open and current accounts involving reciprocal demands, which was not the case in a typical buyer–seller relationship. The Court held that Article 113 applied and that, after excluding the period spent in pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, the suit was within limitation. The Court also rejected challenges to pre-institution mediation, holding that the non-starter report issued by the Legal Services Authority carried statutory credibility and could not be impeached by vague allegations of fraud or non-service. Objections regarding defective goods, fake invoices, and alleged procedural defects in the plaint and Statement of Truth were found to be unsubstantiated or curable. Consequently, the appeal failed both on limitation and on merits, and the ex parte decree was allowed to stand.

Issue of Law

1.  Limitation/Delay: Whether “sufficient cause” existed to condone a 1,000-day delay in filing a first appeal against a commercial money decree, given the strict timelines under s 13, Commercial Courts Act.  

 2.  Limitation in recovery suits: Whether the suit was within limitation, and specifically whether Article 1 (mutual, open and current account with reciprocal demands) or Article 113 (residuary) of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied.  

3.  Pre-institution mediation: Whether there was non-compliance with s 12A Commercial Courts Act due to alleged non-service and whether the “non-starter report” was vitiated by fraud.  

 4.  Procedural objections: Whether defects relating to Statement of Truth/signature on plaint pages rendered the plaint non est.  

Facts

The Commercial Dispute

 •  Parties: The respondent/plaintiff, Ventura International Pvt Ltd, supplied architectural interior goods (laminates/allied materials) to the appellants/defendants, Tanishq Agencies (proprietorship concerns).  

 •  Claim: Ventura alleged supply against multiple invoices and outstanding dues, with part payments having been received; a legal notice dated 09 January 2019 was issued demanding payment.  

 •   Pre-institution mediation: Ventura initiated pre-institution mediation on 21 February 2019; a non-starter report was issued on 08 April 2019 due to non-appearance by the appellants despite service.  

 •   Suit: Filed on 23 May 2019, seeking recovery of ?13,68,311 (inclusive of interest claimed at 24%) and certain amounts relating to non-supply of C-Forms (only 7,122 claimed as recoverable on one bill).  

•  Defence pleaded: Limitation (no running account), defective goods, suppression, and denial of dues.  

Trial Court Outcome

 • The appellants did not appear for cross-examination; they were proceeded ex parte.

 • The Commercial Court partially decreed the suit for ?8,34,336 with 10% p.a. interest from 09 January 2019, plus costs. 

Post-Decree Proceedings

•  Appellants filed Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside ex parte decree; dismissed on 05 July 2025 (not challenged in this appeal).  

•   Appellants claimed they learnt of the decree only upon execution notice in February 2025. 

Judgment Discussion

A. Delay Condonation Refused

            •          The Court held that the appellants failed to show diligence; blaming previous counsel (COVID/unreachability/negligence) was unsupported (no Bar Council complaint or credible material). Hence, delay of 1,000 days was not condoned, emphasising the Commercial Courts Act’s object of strict timelines and the Supreme Court’s approach to delay in commercial matters.  

B. Even on Merits, No Interference Warranted

Despite refusing condonation, the Court examined substance given the nature of a first appeal.

 1.         Limitation analysis corrected (Trial Court’s reasoning not fully upheld):

  •          The Trial Court had treated the account as attracting Article 1, but the High Court explained Article 1 requires mutuality and reciprocal demands, not merely an open/current ledger.  

 •          Relying on Bharath Skins Corporation v Taneja Skins Co Pvt Ltd (2011 SCC OnLine Del 5523), the Court held that buyer–seller dealings generally create a single contractual relationship and not a mutual account; therefore Article 1 did not apply.  

 •          The Court applied Article 113 (residuary), computed limitation from the last payment (17 May 2016), which would make the suit prima facie late by six days; however, the period spent in pre-institution mediation (21 Feb 2019–08 Apr 2019) had to be excluded under the proviso to s 12A, bringing the suit within time.  

 2.         Pre-institution mediation service challenge rejected:

   •          The Court treated the non-starter report as a document issued by a statutory authority and held it could not be displaced by vague allegations of fraud or non-service.  

 •          It relied on s 29, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (entries in public records/e-records made in discharge of duty) and s 23, Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 (deeming officers as public servants) to underscore the evidentiary credibility of the report.  

3.         Defective goods / fake invoices allegations rejected for lack of proof:

•          The Court found appellants had not substantiated claims of defective goods or shown proof that complaints were communicated to the respondent; their assertions were largely bare.  

4.         Statement of Truth / signatures objections dismissed as curable:

              The Court noted the appellants themselves had annexed the Statement of Truth, and defects about signatures/verification are procedural and curable, not rendering plaint non est; reliance was placed on Vidyawati Gupta v Bhakti Hari Nayak (2006) 2 SCC 777.Non-compliance with earlier procedural orders rejected.The High Court found the record showed compliance by the plaintiff and contradicted appellants’ claims.

Conclusion

The appeal failed on merits as well and was disposed of. Subsequent Development. Delay condonation applications were dismissed; the appeal was disposed of. Pending applications, if any, stood disposed. The Order IX Rule 13 dismissal dated 05 July 2025 was not challenged in this appeal.

Access the full judgement here

Court

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi 

Case Title

Tanishq Agencies v Ventura International Pvt Ltd 

Case Number

RFA(COMM) 665/2025 

Bench

Hon’ble Mr Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Hon’ble Mr Justice Ajay Digpaul 

Date of Judgment

Pronounced on 27 February 2026