Commercial Courts Act | Limitation Period Starts From Pronouncement Of Judgment & Not Receipt Of Copy : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that the limitation period for filing an appeal under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, commences from the date of pronouncement of the judgment and that a party cannot insist that the limitation starts only from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment.The Court clarified that while Order XX Rule 1 of the CPC places a duty on the court to provide a copy of the...
The Supreme Court held that the limitation period for filing an appeal under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, commences from the date of pronouncement of the judgment and that a party cannot insist that the limitation starts only from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment.
The Court clarified that while Order XX Rule 1 of the CPC places a duty on the court to provide a copy of the judgment to the litigant, the litigant is nonetheless expected to make reasonable efforts to apply for it.
The Court further held that a litigant cannot contend that the limitation period begins only upon receiving a copy of the judgment unless it is demonstrated that they made their best efforts to obtain the judgment copy in order to challenge it within the prescribed time.
In other words, procedural rules must be interpreted in accordance with legislative intent. Although Order XX Rule 1 CPC is designed to facilitate access to judgments, it does not displace the principle of diligence embedded in limitation law.
Consequently, the limitation period is to be computed from the date of pronouncement of the judgment, not from the date of receipt of its copy.
“Thus, merely because Order XX Rule I enjoins a duty upon the commercial courts to provide the copies of the judgment that does not mean that the parties can shirk away all responsibility of endeavoring to procure the certified copies thereof in their own capacity. Any such interpretation would result in frustrating the very fundamental cannons of law of limitation and the salutary purpose of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 of ensuring timely disposals.”, the court said.
“One of the core tenets of the law of limitation is to enthuse diligence amongst parties as to their rights. The law of limitation cannot be read in such a manner whereby parties stop showing any modicum of regard for their own rights and on the pre-text of untimely communication continue to litigate without being vigilante themselves.”, the court added.
The clarification came by a bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing the case where the petitioners was aggrieved by the Jharkhand High Court's refusal to condone a 301-day delay in filing a commercial appeal under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The delay arose from the petitioners' failure to file an appeal within the statutory 60-day period under Section 13(1-A) of the Act. The High Court rejected their application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, citing a lack of "sufficient cause" for the delay.
The petitioners argued that the limitation period should commence only after receiving a copy of the judgment, as mandated by Order XX Rule 1 CPC (as amended for commercial courts).
Rejecting the Appellant's contention, the Court observed that they could not rely on the provisions of Order XX Rule 1 CPC to argue that the limitation period for filing an appeal under the Commercial Courts Act would commence only upon receipt of the judgment copy. The Court reasoned that if such an interpretation were accepted, it would mean that till the Registry does not provide the copy of the judgment, though not demanded, the period of limitation would not commence from the date of the pronouncement of the judgment
Such an interpretation undermines the very purpose and objective of the limitation law and the Commercial Courts Act, both of which emphasize the timely disposal of appeals.
“In the present case we find that after the order in question came to be pronounced by the Commercial Court, Ranchi, the appellants herein during the limitation period did not bother to even inquire as to why the said order was not available. It was only eight-months after the pronouncement of the said order and almost 150-days after the expiry of the limitation period, that the realization suddenly dawned upon the appellants herein to apply for the certified copy.”, the court noted.
The Court distinguished the judgments in Housing Board, Haryana v. Housing Board Colony Welfare Association and Others reported in (1995) 5 SCC 672 and Sagufa Ahmed and Others. v. Upper Assam Polywood Products Private Limited and Others reported in (2021) 2 SCC 317
"Although in Housing Board, Haryana (supra) this Court had held that where the provisions enjoin a duty of communicating any order or judgment that has been pronounced, the limitation for challenging the same would begin from the date of such communication, yet the aforesaid observations cannot be construed devoid of the context in which they were made. A close reading of the decision would indicate that in the said case, after the pronouncement of the order, the appellants therein had made active efforts for procuring the said order, and this is evident from the fact that few days after the pronouncement, the counsel of the appellants therein had made inquires as regards the unavailability of the order in response to which he was informed that the order was yet to be signed.
Thus, when this Court in Housing Board, Haryana (supra) held that the limitation for challenging the same would begin from the date of such communication, the same would be applicable only where despite best of efforts at the end of the parties in procuring the order the same could not be obtained and thereby resulting in unavoidable delay in the filing of appeals."
Sagufa Ahmed was distinguished by noting that the appellants therein had made some efforts to procure a certified copy of the order to be assailed during the period of limitation.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: JHARKHAND URJA UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. & ANR. VERSUS M/S BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 496
Click here to read/download the judgment
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Kripal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.A.G. Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh Standing Counsel, Adv. Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Zain A. Khan, Adv. Ms. Ekta Bharati, Adv.