Summary
The requirement in Order XX Rule 1 CPC, as amended for commercial courts, that copies of the judgment be issued to the parties is directory, not mandatory: the sixty-day limitation for an appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 runs from pronouncement, and a party cannot wait indefinitely for a copy it never asked for. The High Court's refusal to condone a 301-day delay by a State undertaking that applied for a certified copy only eight months after pronouncement was upheld.
Issues
- Whether the requirement in Order XX Rule 1 CPC, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, that copies of the judgment be issued to the parties is mandatory, so that limitation for an appeal under Section 13(1A) does not begin until a copy is supplied.
- Whether the decisions in Housing Board, Haryana and Sagufa Ahmed, computing limitation from the date of communication of the order, apply to a party that made no effort to obtain the judgment.
- Whether a delay of 301 days in filing a commercial appeal could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Provisions considered
- Order XX Rule 1 (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The amended sub-rule (1) requires the Commercial Court, Commercial Division or Commercial Appellate Division to pronounce judgment within ninety days of conclusion of arguments and to issue copies to all parties through electronic mail or otherwise. The Court declined to read this as mandatory: the duty on the court to supply copies does not relieve parties of their responsibility to procure certified copies, and limitation is not suspended until the Registry supplies a copy that was never demanded. (¶¶ 5, 8, 9, 10, 18)
- Section 13(1A), Commercial Courts Act, 2015Provides a period of sixty days from the date of the judgment or order for an appeal to the Commercial Appellate Division. Read with the Act's object of speedy resolution and its strict timelines, parties to commercial suits are put on notice by the statute that failure to comply carries adverse consequences. (¶¶ 2, 7, 17)
- Section 16, Commercial Courts Act, 2015Amends the CPC in its application to suits involving commercial disputes of a Specified Value and gives the amended provisions overriding effect over High Court rules and State amendments; noted as the source of the amended Order XX Rule 1. (¶ 7)
- Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963The High Court, applying this Court's decision in Government of Maharashtra (as cited), held that 'sufficient cause' is not elastic enough to cover long delays beyond the appeal period, that under the Commercial Courts Act delay beyond sixty days is condoned by way of exception and not where there is negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides, and that the 301-day delay caused by the applicants' negligence could not be condoned. The Supreme Court agreed completely with this reasoning. (¶¶ 2, 4, 20, 21)
Held
- The direction in amended Order XX Rule 1 CPC that copies of the judgment be issued to the parties is directory and not mandatory; limitation for a commercial appeal does not remain suspended until the Registry supplies a copy of the judgment that was never demanded. (¶¶ 9, 10, 18, 21)
- Housing Board, Haryana and Sagufa Ahmed, which computed limitation from the date the order was communicated or made available, cannot be read divorced from their context: they apply only where the party made active efforts to procure the order during the limitation period and could not obtain it despite its best efforts. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
- A core tenet of the law of limitation is to instil diligence; where the appellants did not even enquire about the judgment during the limitation period and applied for a certified copy about eight months after pronouncement, nearly 150 days after limitation expired, they cannot invoke untimely communication to continue litigating. (¶¶ 14, 16)
- The Commercial Courts Act read with the amended CPC fixes strict timelines to avoid delay in commercial suits; the duty cast on commercial courts to supply copies does not permit parties to shirk their own responsibility to obtain certified copies, and a contrary reading would frustrate the law of limitation and the purpose of the Act. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- The Supreme Court endorsed the High Court's reasoning that under Section 5 of the Limitation Act a delay beyond the sixty-day period under Section 13(1A) may be condoned only by way of exception, not where there is negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides; a State undertaking with its own legal department cannot blame its counsel or the opposite party for not informing it of the judgment. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21)
Result
Special leave petition dismissed; High Court's refusal to condone the 301-day delay in filing the commercial appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 upheld; pending applications disposed of.