Ms. Ruchi Gupta, Adv v. M S SRI RAM PLASTOCHEM PVT LTD

Judgment

1. This application seeks condonation of an inordinate delay of 780 days in filing RFA (Comm) 331/2025.

2. On the aspect of delay in commercial matters, the Supreme Court has taken an extremely strict view, as is reflected from the following passages the decision in Government of Maharashtra v Borse Bros. Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd1: “63. Given the aforesaid and the object of speedy disposal sought to be achieved both under the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, for appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Signature Not Verified 1 (2021) 6 SCC 460 Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:13.11.2025 16:04:06 RFA(COMM) 331/2025

Limitation Act or Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, a delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule. In a fit case in which a party has otherwise acted bona fide and not in a negligent manner, a short delay beyond such period can, in the discretion of the court, be condoned, always bearing in mind that the other side of the picture is that the opposite party may have acquired both in equity and justice, what may now be lost by the first party's inaction, negligence or laches.”

3. We, therefore, cannot condone delay as inordinate as 780 days without cogent grounds having been made out by the appellants justifying such condonation.

4. We have heard Ms. Ruchi Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellants at some length on this application. Ms. Gupta’s contention is that fraud had been committed by the respondent and that, where fraud is committed, limitation does not enter the picture. She relies, for this purpose, on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishnu Vardhan v State of UP2.

5. We do not deem it necessary to advert to the relevant paragraph from the said decision, as the proposition mooted by Ms. Ruchi Gupta is unexceptional. There can be no doubt about the fact that fraud unravels everything, ecclesiastical as well as temporal, and that, where fraud is found to exist, all equities stand divested. If the respondent had committed a fraud, there can be no doubt about the fact that the appellants might not be hit by limitation.

6. We, therefore, called upon Ms. Gupta to substantiate her Signature Not Verified 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1501 Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:13.11.2025 16:04:06 RFA(COMM) 331/2025 argument that there was fraud committed by the respondent.

7. Ms. Gupta’s only contention, on the basis of which she bases the allegation of fraud, is based on a “certificate of non-starter report” dated 3 December 2020 issued by the North District Legal Services Authority3, which reads as under: “Ref.334/mediation/comm.-dispute/north/2020 Dated 03.12.2020 Certificate of Non-Starter Report Name of the applicant: M/s. Sri Ram Plastochem Pvt. Ltd Date of application for pre-Institution mediation:

02.11.2020. Name of opposite party: M/s Aggarwal Polymers India & Ors! Date scheduled for obtaining consent of opposite party:

19.11.2020, 03.12.2020. Report made under rule 3(4) or 3(6): Under Rule 3(6). Non Starter Report reason: Notice/Final Notice served to the respondent and the respondent failed to give consent before this Authority on the fixed date mentioned in the Notice/ Final Notice. It seems that respondent is not interested in the Pre- Institution Mediation Process. Sd. Harjeet Singh Jaspal Secretary- North District District Legal Services Authority Rohini Courts, Delhi.”

8. We may note that the afore-extracted certificate was issued in Signature Not Verified 3 “DLSA”, hereinafter Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:13.11.2025 16:04:06 RFA(COMM) 331/2025 view of the mandate of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which requires pre-institution mediation before any commercial suit is instituted. The respondent relied on the aforesaid certificate of “non-starter report” issued by the North DLSA to contend that Section 12A stood exhausted.

9. Ms. Gupta submits that the statement, in the aforesaid certificate, that notice had been served on the appellants, and the appellants had failed to give consent to the North DLSA, is incorrect as no notice was sent or served on the appellant by any means known to law.

10. That, however, if anything, can only be an error in the certificate of non-starter report dated 3 December 2020. It is not Ms. Gupta’s contention - as it cannot be – that there was any collusion between the North DLSA and the respondent.

11. In that view of the matter, even if it were to be presumed, for the sake of argument, that Ms. Gupta’s contention regarding the reference to the notice having been served on the appellants in the certificate of non-starter report issued by the North DLSA is incorrect, that cannot translate into fraud having been committed by the respondent.

12. We may, in this context, advert to certain authorities which have expounded the concept of fraud when committed by a litigant. Signature Not Verified Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:13.11.2025 16:04:06 RFA(COMM) 331/2025

13. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v Jagannath4 defines “fraud” as “an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another” and “a deception in order to gain by another’s loss … a cheating intended to get an advantage”. Ram Chandra Singh v Savitri Devi5 squarely addressed the concept of fraud in litigation, and held: “15. Commission of fraud on court and suppression of material facts are the core issues involved in these matters. Fraud as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together.

16. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by word or letter.

17. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud.

18. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad.

19. In Derry v Peek6 it was held: “In an action of deceit the plaintiff must prove actual fraud. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made knowingly, or without belief in its truth, or recklessly, without caring whether it be true or false. A false statement, made through carelessness and without reasonable ground for believing it to be true, may be evidence of fraud but does not necessarily amount to fraud. Such a statement, if made in the honest belief that it is true, is not fraudulent and does not render the person making it liable to an action of deceit.