Allowed

M/S. Stonemann Royale Ltd. v. M/S. Trans Asian Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Bombay HC28 Jan 2026IA/9167/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation-of-delay application seeking 51 days' indulgence for filing a First Appeal, supported by precedent on liberal construction of sufficient cause under the Limitation Act, was allowed. A related stay application against pending execution proceedings was taken up but adjourned for reply, with the court suggesting an amicable settlement attempt between the parties.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 51 days in filing the First Appeal condoned in terms of prayer clause (a); stay application adjourned to 05.05.2026.

M/S. Stonemann Royale Ltd. vs M/S. Trans Asian… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

IA 9167-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9167 OF 2024

¶4

M/s. Stonemann Royale Ltd.

¶5

..Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. Trans Asian Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai ..Respondent

¶8

ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME

¶9

Digitally signed by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Date: 2026.04.22 19:59:44 +0530

¶10

Ms. Kiran Doiphode i/b. M/s. V. M. Doiphode & Co., Advocate, for the Applicant

¶11

Mr. Manoj Kothari a/w. Mr. Omkar Dhobale & Ms. Kavya Banerjee, Advocates, for the Respondent

¶12

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

¶13

DATE : 21.04.2026

¶14

P. C.

¶15

This Interim Application is filed by the Applicant to condone

¶16

delay of 51 days in filing the First Appeal.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for both sides and I have gone through the contents of the Interim Application.

¶18

Supreme Court in the Judgment of Collector, Land Acquisition,

¶19

Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katji and Others reported in 1987 SC 1353 , has held that:

¶20

“Every day’s delay must be explained” does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every house’s delay. Every second’s delay ? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.”

¶21

1 of 4

¶22

Anand

¶23

IA 9167-2024.doc

¶24

Supreme Court in the case of S. Ganesharaju (Dead) through Lrs

¶25

V. Narasamma (Dead) through Lrs reported in (2013) 11 SCC 341 ,

¶26

more specifically, paragraph Nos. 12 and 13, of the said Judgment held that a liberal construction to the cause of delay should be given. The said paragraphs are reproduced herein below:

¶27

The expression “sufficient cause” as appearing in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has to be given a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. Unless the respondents are able to show malafides in not approaching the court within the period of limitation, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. The trend of the courts while dealing with the matter with regard to condonation of delay has tilted more towards condoning delay and directing the parties to contest the matter on merits, meaning thereby that such technicalities have been given go-by.

¶28

The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy or foreclose the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly.

¶29

Bombay High Court in the Judgment of Kamalbai Narasaiyya

¶30

Shrimal and Another Vs. Ganpat Vithalrao Gavare reported in 2007 (1)

¶31

MH. L.J. 807 , paragraph Nos.13 and 15 has held:

¶32

The factual position is manifestly clear on bare perusal of the application for condonation filed by the petitioners before the learned District Judge. The only relevant statement in the application is thus:

¶33

“The delay caused in preferring the appeal is of six months. The caused delay is not intentional one. The appellants are poor and helpless persons. If the delay is not condoned appellant may cause irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of

¶34

2 of 4

¶35

Anand

¶36

IA 9167-2024.doc

¶37

money. The suit was for recovery of possession and present appellants are tenants. If the delay is not condoned then appellants will become shelterless.”

¶38

The expression “sufficient cause” cannot be erased from section of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach which would defeat the very purpose of section 5 of the Limitation Act. There must be some cause which can be termed as a sufficient one for the purpose of delay condonation. I do not find any such “sufficient cause” stated in the application and as such no interference in the impugned order is called for.”

¶39

According to me, considering the submissions made in the Interim Application and the law laid down in above judgments, a case is made out to allow the Interim Application.

¶40

The Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and disposed of accordingly.

¶41

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3074 OF 2026

¶42

Mentioned. Not on board. Taken on board.

¶43

This Interim Application is filed by the Applicant seeking stay to the Execution Application No. 18 of 2025 pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dadra and Nagar Haveli at Silvassa.

¶44

Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that a copy of the Application is served on him and his client only yesterday. Therefore, he seeks a short accommodation in order to file reply to the Interim Application.

¶45

3 of 4

¶46

Anand

¶47

IA 9167-2024.doc

¶48

Two weeks time is granted to the Respondent to file their reply

¶49

to the stay Application.

¶50

Place this matter on 05.05.2026 , High On Board.

¶51

At this stage, this Court has suggested to the parties whether

¶52

they can make an attempt to amicably resolve the dispute.

¶53

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that within one week from today, without prejudice he will give an offer to the Respondent.

¶54

Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that if such offer is received by him within one week from today, he will respond to the same within a couple of days thereafter.

¶55

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

¶56

4 of 4

¶57

Anand

M/S. Stonemann Royale Ltd. v. M/S. Trans Asian Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Stonemann Royale Ltd. v. M/S. Trans Asian Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Tejas Dattatray Takalkar vs the State of Maharashtra

Binay Mandal vs Kinesis Film Pvt. Ltd.

Arbaaz Khan Productions Pvt. Ltd. vs Kinesis Films Private Limited

Gazia Abubakar Shaikh Alias Gazia Afroz Ali Sayyed vs Abubakar Mushtaq Shaikh

Sidhant Suresh Rastogi vs Aradhana W/O Sidhant Rastogi

Lodha Developers Limited vs Shobhana Sahadev Shah