Timely communication of judgments is critical, and failure to act diligently does not justify excessive delays in filing appeals under commercial law.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.

I.A. No. 11269 of 2024 in/and Commercial Appeal No. 1 of 2025

1. This application has been filed under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 to condone the delay of 301 days in filing this appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , 2015 challenging the judgment dt. 09.10.2023 passed in Commercial Suit No. 16 of 2015 of the Presiding Officer, Commercial Court, Ranchi.

2. The said suit had been filed by the respondent against the applicants for recovery of Rs. 26,59,34,854/- with interest @ 15.75 % per annum (quarterly) till realization from 12.11.2014 on the basis of the Award passed by the MSME Council, Kanpur.

3. In the application seeking condonation of delay, it is alleged that the applicants never received a copy of the judgment or any communication concerning the disposal of the case from the Commercial Court or counsel engaged by the applicants for conducting the suit, and therefore, the applicants could not filed any appeal before this Court within the period of limitation prescribed therefor under Section 13(1-A) of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , 2015.

4. Reliance is placed by applicants on Order XX Rule 1 of the C.P.C. as applicable to the Commercial Courts under which the Commercial Courts shall, within 90 days of the conclusion of the arguments pronounce judgment, and issue copies of the judgment to all the parties to the dispute through electronic mail or otherwise.

5. It is contended that mere pronouncement of the order/judgment of the Commercial Court would not be the starting point of limitation, but the limitation will have to be computed as commencing from the date on which the copy of the judgment is issued to the parties.

6. It is contended that in the instant case, the copy of the judgment of the Commercial Court in the suit was not issued to the applicants after pronouncement of the judgment; that they obtained the same after making an application in that regard; and so the period of limitation would start from the date of issue of the judgment by the Commercial Court.

7. It is contended that the respondent also never made any communication with the applicants concerning disposal of the suit and that they also did not make any demand of payment in terms of the judgment/decree in the suit.

8. It is alleged that the applicants came to know about the disposal of the suit eight months after its actual disposal on account of lack of communication, and the delay is therefore liable to be condoned.

9. Other contentions on merits of the case have also been raised in the application for condonation of delay.

10. Counsel for the applicants contended that under Section 16 of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , 2015 certain amendments were made to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in so far as it applies to the Commercial Courts; that Order XX Rule 1 C.P.C. in so far as it applies to the Commercial Courts mandates the supply of copies of the judgment of the Commercial Courts to all parties to the dispute through electronic mail or otherwise; this being a special provision, does not obligate the applicants to secure the copy of the certified copy of the judgment of the Commercial Courts; and if the Commercial Court fails in its statutory obligation to furnish the certified copy of the judgment as mandated in Order XX Rule 1 C.P.C. as applicable to it, the period of limitation does not commence for filing of the appeal.

11. Counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Housing Board, Haryana Vs Housing Board Colony Welfare Association and others