The Supreme Court Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan has reaffirmed the importance of diligence and procedural discipline in commercial litigation, holding that under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the limitation period for filing an appeal commences from the date of pronouncement of the judgment and not from the date of receiving a certified copy.

The bench while dismissing a special leave petition filed against an order passed by the Jharkhand High Court, which had refused to condone a delay of 301 days in filing an appeal, 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.

The dispute stemmed from a civil suit instituted by M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, a Central Government enterprise, against the petitioners for recovery of Rs. 26.59 crore with interest, based on an arbitral award issued by the MSME Council, Kanpur. The petitioners delayed filing their statutory appeal by over 300 days, citing issues related to receipt of the judgment copy. The High Court rejected this plea, stating that no “sufficient cause” was demonstrated.

Senior Advocate Mr. Saurabh Kripal, for the petitioners, presented two primary contentions: That the High Court failed to properly interpret the amended Order XX Rule 1 of the CPC, applicable to commercial courts, which relates to the pronouncement and communication of judgments. That the period of limitation should begin only after the parties are provided a free copy of the judgment, as mandated by Order XX Rule 1, which they argued is a mandatory, not directory, provision. The petitioners cited Housing Board, Haryana v. Housing Board Colony Welfare Association (1995) and Sagufa Ahmed v. Upper Assam Polywood Products (2021) to support their claims.

However, the court, rejecting the petitioners’ arguments, emphasized that their interpretation would undermine the purpose of the Commercial Courts Act, which seeks to ensure swift and efficient adjudication of commercial disputes.

“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 observed.

Reiterating the importance of proactive conduct in legal proceedings, the Court stated that “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 bench noted that the petitioners had been completely inactive after the Commercial Court’s judgment.

“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 stated.

The Court also clarified that the petitioners had misapplied the Housing Board, Haryana precedent. It emphasized that the ruling in that case must be read within its factual context.

“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 inquiries as regards the unavailability of the order in response to which he was informed that the order was yet to be signed.” the court opined.

The court further stated that “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.”

Concluding that the petitioners had failed to exercise reasonable diligence, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s reasoning and dismissed the special leave petition:

“We are in complete agreement with the line of reasoning assigned by the High Court,” the bench stated.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed and all pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/S Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 9580 of 2025

Advocate for the Petitioner : 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.