Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
20. No doubt there was a similar provision in Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 framed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Housing Board, Haryana (1 supra). The said provision in the Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 also provided for communication of the order of the District forum to the parties free of charge in order to avoid the delay as well as to save the parties from the burden of expenses that may he incurred for obtaining the certified copy. The Supreme Court held that the scheme of the Consumer Protection Act was to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumers as a measure for economical and speedy remedy for the settlement of the dispute and the matters connected therewith and therefore, the said rule should be understood in a manner so that it would protect the interest of the parties before the District forum by making it obligatory on the District forum to provide a copy of the order duly signed and dated by the members of the Bench; and the period of limitation prescribed with regard to filing of an appeal under Section 15 of the said Act therefore, has to be computed as commencing from the date of communication of the order in the manner laid down in the rules. It was in that context that it was Held that mere pronouncement of an order in the open Conn would not be enough, but under the scheme of the rules copy of the said judgment has to be communicated to the parties affected by the said order so that the parties adversely affected therefrom may have a fair and reasonable opportunity of knowing the text, reasons and contents thereof so as to formulate grounds of attack before the appellate or before the higher forums. In absence of such communication of signed and dated order, it was held that the parties adversely affected by it will have no means of knowing the contents of the order so to challenge the same and get it set aside by the appellate authority or by the higher forums. [2025] 4 S.C.R. Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited
21. Normally petitioners before the District forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are individuals and not corporate entities like the appellant/instrumentality of the State. So, there is justification for taking the view as regards petitioners in District forums that the provisions in the Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 which mandated communication of the order of the said forums to the parties free of charge was to save the parties from the burden of expenses that may be incurred for obtaining the certified copy.
22. We are afraid that the logic behind the provision contained in Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 framed under the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 cannot be applied to the litigants before the Commercial Court. For Commercial entities and in particular litigants like the applicants herein who are the State Government Undertakings, the expenses of obtaining a certified copy of a judgment of the Commercial Court would be very small compared to the stakes involves in the litigation.
23. Therefore, they cannot be put on the same footing as a petitioner before the District Consumer forum; and the logic of counting the period of limitation from the date of communication of the order of consumer forum, cannot be applied to a Commercial dispute to which Commercial entities are parties.
24. In our opinion. Order XX Rule 1 CPC as amended and made applicable to the Commercial Courts is to be treated as only directory and not mandatory. So notwithstanding the provision contained in the amended Order XX Rule 1 CPC (mandating issuance of copies to the parties to the dispute through electronic mail or otherwise), if such copies are not issued within a reasonable time, the parties to the dispute have to apply for the same, and after obtaining it, prefer an appeal within the time prescribed in Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
25. This is because the speedy resolution of high value commercial dispute cannot be lost sight of. Such an interpretation would be in tune with the scheme and object 1658 of the Commercial Couns Act, 2015 and any interpretation of the nature advanced by the counsel for the applicants would defeat the whole purpose of the object of the Commercial Courts Act. 2015 to provide for speedy disposal of high value commercial disputes.
26. Therefore, we reject the contention of the counsel for the applicants that the period of limitation for filing the appeal to the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court would not commence unless the judgment of the Commercial Court in the Commercial suit was communicated by the said Commercial Court to the parties.
27. We shall next consider whether the delay of 301 days in filing this Commercial Appeal can be condone in exercise of power conferred on this Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
28. The extent of applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to cases falling under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 fell for consideration of the Supreme Court in Government of Maharashtra (2 supra).
29. The Supreme Court in Para 19 of it’s judgment in Government of Maharashtra (2 supra) discussed the statement of objects and reasons behind enacting of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and held that period of limitation must always to some extent be arbitrary and may result in some hardship, but this is no reason as to why they should not be strictly followed. In para 32, it held that the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has to be seen in the context of the object of speedy resolution of the dispute. In para 58, the Supreme Court held that given the object sought to be achieved under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 i.e., the speedy resolution of the disputes, expression “sufficient cause” in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not elastic enough to cover long delays beyond the period provided by the appeal provision itself; and that the expression “sufficient cause” is not itself a loose panacea for the ill of pressing negligent and stale claims. [2025] 4 S.C.R. Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited In other words, the Supreme Court indicated that in exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 a delay beyond the period of 60 days from the date on which the appeal could have been filed can be condoned (i.e., below 120 days from the date of pronouncement of the judgment) by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, but where there is negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides, such power ought not to be exercised. It went further in para 59 by observing that merely because the Government is involved, a different yardstick for condonation of delay cannot be laid down. (This rule would thus apply equally to instrumentalities of Government like the applicants herein). It held in para 62 that merely because sufficient cause has been made out in the facts of a given case, there is no right in the applicants or the appellants to have the delay condoned. It concluded in para 63 as under: “63. Given the aforesaid and the object of speedy disposal sought to be achieved both under the Arbitration An and the Commercial Courts Act, for appeals pled under section 37 of the Arbitration Act that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act or Section 13(l-A)of the Commercial Courts Act, a delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days. respectively, is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule. In a fit case in which a party has otherwise acted bona fide and not in a negligent manner, a short delay beyond such period can, in the discretion of the court, he condoned, always bearing in mind that the other side of the picture is that the opposite party may have acquired both in equity and justice, what may now be lost by the first party’s inaction, negligence or laches.” (emphasis supplied)
30. Thus, the Supreme Court in Government of Maharashtra (2 supra) permitted condonation of delay beyond 60 days 1660 in a case falling under the Commercial Courts Act only by way of exception and not by way of rule. If the applicants for condonation of delay had not acted bona fide and had acted in a negligent manner as in the instant case, the delay is not liable to be condoned.
31. In the instant case, the delay in filing the appeal is 301 days – way beyond 60 days + 60 days = 120 days permitted by the judgment of the Supreme Court to be condoned in exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, such inordinate delay caused by negligence of the applicants is not liable to be condoned.
32. We may also point out that the applicants were represented before the Commercial Court, Ranchi by counsel and the judgment was obviously pronounced in the presence of the counsel. Though the order was pronounced on 09.10.2023 it appears that the application for issuance of certified copy was made on 30.08.2024, it was made ready on 07.09.2024, and the appeal was filed on 04.10.2024. If the Commercial Court had not communicated the copy of its judgment to the applicants within the reasonable time, it was incumbent on the part of the counsel for the applicants or the employees in the Legal Department of the applicants to apply for issuance of certified copy from the Commercial Court, but they have failed in their duty to apply for it when they did not receive it within a reasonable time. Their negligence resulted in the inordinate delay of 301 days in filing this appeal.
33. The applicants cannot blame the respondent for not communicating to them about the disposal of the appeal and for not making any demand of payment in terms of the decree of the Commercial Court.
34. They also cannot take advantage of the negligence of the counsel engaged by them in not informing the applicants [2025] 4 S.C.R. Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited about the judgment of the Commercial Court. This is because the applicants have a Legal Department and employees engaged by the applicants in that department have a duty to monitor what is happening in the cases to which the applicants are parties, keep track of the progress of the said cases and the decisions therein, and ensure that applications for issuance of certified copy are made to the concerned court so that the appeals, if required, can be preferred within the period of limitation prescribed by law.” 21. We are in complete agreement with the line of reasoning assigned by the High Court. 22. In the result, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 23. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Result of the case: Petition dismissed. †Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan