LexJHARKHAND URJA UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. & ANR. versus M/S BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1646 : 2025 INSC 533 Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9580 of 2025) 15 April 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The High Court rejected the Interim Application No. 11269 of 2024 filed by the petitioner herein u/s.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and thereby declined to condone the delay of 301 days in filing the main appeal u/s.13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Headnotes† Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – ss.13(1-A), 16 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XX Rule 1 – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.5 – Respondent instituted a civil suit against the Petitioner for recovery of a sum of money along with interest on the basis of the award passed by the MSME Council – There was a delay of 301 days in filing the statutory appeal – An application u/s.5 of the Limitation Act was filed by the Petitioner – The High Court declined to condone the delay – Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended the pronouncement of the judgment in the open court in accordance with the amended provisions of Order XX Rule 1 CPC cannot be the starting point of limitation unless a free copy of the judgment is provided to the parties in the manner provided under Order XX Rule 1 CPC: Held: Order XX Rule 1 CPC cannot be construed as mandatory – In the present case, after the order in question came to be pronounced by the Commercial Court, 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 – One of the avowed objects of the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act read with amended provisions of CPC applicable to the Commercial Courts is to ensure that there is no unnecessary delay in disposal [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1647 Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited of the commercial suit – Once specific time lines are fixed and there is a strict procedure provided in terms of the Commercial Courts Act, parties are by the statute put to notice that they have to very carefully contest the suits filed as commercial suits and that failing to comply with statutory timelines and a strict procedure, certain adverse consequences may flow on account of lack of application by a contesting party – 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 Act, 2015 of ensuring timely disposals – Therefore, this Court is in complete agreement with the line of reasoning assigned by the High Court. [Paras 10, 16, 17, 18, 21] Case Law Cited Housing Board, Haryana v. Housing Board Colony Welfare Association and Others [1995] Supp. 3 SCR 219 : (1995) 5 SCC 672; Sagufa Ahmed and Others. v. Upper Assam Polywood Products Private Limited and Others [2020] 9 SCR 472 : (2021) 2 SCC 317 – held inapplicable. List of Acts Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Limitation Act, 1963. List of Keywords Condonation of Delay; Period of Limitation; Order XX Rule 1; Commercial Courts; Limitation period; Free copy of judgment; Avowed objects of the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act. Case Arising From EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9580 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 14.02.2025 of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in COA No. 1 of 2025 1648 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Petitioners: Sachin Kumar, A.A.G., Saurabh Kripal, Sr. Adv., Kumar Anurag Singh, Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, Zain A. Khan, Ms. Ekta Bharati. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. Exemption Application is allowed. 2. This petition arises from the judgment and order passed by the High court of Jharkhand at Ranchi dated 14.02.2025 in Commercial Appeal No. 1 of 2025 by which the High Court rejected the Interim Application No. 11269 of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.