The Supreme Court has ruled that under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the limitation period for filing an appeal begins from the pronouncement of the judgment, not from the date when the party receives a certified copy. This ruling came in the case titled Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd. & Anr. vs. M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan held that parties cannot delay legal processes by claiming the limitation period starts only when they receive the judgment copy. The Court stressed that procedural law must encourage diligence and timely action.
“Merely because Order XX Rule I enjoins a duty upon the commercial courts to provide copies of the judgment does not mean parties can shirk responsibility. Any such interpretation would defeat the core principle of limitation law and the object of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.” – Supreme Court
Read Also:- Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Ahmedabad Slum Demolition, Allows Representation for Larger Housing
Case Background
The case arose after the Jharkhand High Court refused to condone a 301-day delay in filing an appeal. The petitioners had missed the 60-day limitation period set under Section 13(1-A) of the Act. They argued that the time should begin from the date they received the copy of the judgment.
The Court rejected this claim, stating that litigants must show efforts to obtain a copy if they intend to challenge a judgment. In this case, the appellants made no attempt to obtain the judgment during the limitation period and waited for eight months after the pronouncement to apply for the certified copy.
“One of the key purposes of limitation law is to promote diligence. The law cannot support parties who neglect their responsibilities and then seek benefit by blaming procedural delays.” – Supreme Court
The judgment distinguished previous rulings, such as Housing Board, Haryana and Sagufa Ahmed, explaining that those cases involved parties who had shown active efforts to procure judgments but were delayed due to exceptional reasons. In contrast, the petitioners here made no such effort.
“Unlike individuals before consumer forums, commercial litigants like government undertakings are expected to monitor their legal matters actively. The cost or process of getting certified copies cannot be an excuse.” – Supreme Court
The Court emphasized that commercial disputes demand urgency, and delays weaken the purpose of the Commercial Courts Act, which aims to ensure fast resolution. It upheld the High Court's decision and dismissed the special leave petition.
Case Title: JHARKHAND URJA UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. & ANR. VERSUS M/S BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED
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.
