Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd. v. M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited
Background
BHEL had obtained a favourable award from the MSME Council and sued the petitioner-power company for recovery of over Rs. 26.5 crore with interest; the Commercial Court ruled against the petitioner. The petitioner filed its statutory appeal under the Commercial Courts Act 301 days late, and asked the Jharkhand High Court to condone the delay, arguing that the limitation clock should only start once a signed copy of the judgment was actually provided to the parties (not from the date of pronouncement). The High Court refused to condone the delay, and the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the requirement in Order XX Rule 1 CPC (as amended for commercial courts) to issue judgment copies to parties is directory, not mandatory, meaning limitation still runs from the date of pronouncement, and a party who wants a delayed copy must proactively apply for a certified copy rather than simply wait. It held that sophisticated commercial litigants like government undertakings, unlike individual consumers, bear a duty of diligence, and here the petitioner did nothing for eight months and applied for a certified copy only 150 days after the limitation period had already expired. Citing its own precedent (Government of Maharashtra), the Court reiterated that under the Commercial Courts Act delays beyond 120 days from pronouncement are not to be condoned as a matter of routine, and dismissed the petition, upholding the 301-day delay as fatal.
Lesson Learnt
In commercial litigation, courts expect strict diligence: a party (especially a corporate or government entity) cannot sit passively waiting for a judgment copy to arrive; it must proactively apply for one, and failure to do so will not excuse a late appeal.