Commercial appeal limitation starts without waiting for judgment communication; negligent 301-day delay was not condoned.

In commercial disputes, the amended Order XX Rule 1 CPC was held directory, not mandatory, so limitation for appeal does not await formal communication of the judgment copy. Litigants remain bound to act diligently and cannot rely on non-receipt where they have not made timely efforts to obtain the order. A 301-day delay in filing the commercial appeal was not condonable under Section 5 of the Limitation Act because the applicants were negligent, inactive, and lacked bona fides. The refusal to condone delay was upheld, and the appeal was treated as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended Order XX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applicable to commercial disputes, makes communication of the judgment a mandatory condition for commencement of limitation for filing an appeal under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015; (ii) whether a delay of 301 days in filing the commercial appeal could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Issue (i): Whether the amended Order XX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applicable to commercial disputes, makes communication of the judgment a mandatory condition for commencement of limitation for filing an appeal under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is aimed at speedy resolution of commercial disputes. The amended provision requiring issuance of copies of the judgment was read in that context, and the obligation of the court to supply copies was held not to relieve litigants of their own duty to act diligently and seek the order if it is not received within a reasonable time. The earlier authorities relied upon were distinguished on their facts, as those cases involved prompt efforts by the parties to obtain copies and a different statutory setting.

Conclusion: The provision was held to be directory and not mandatory, and limitation was not held to await formal communication of the judgment copy.

Issue (ii): Whether a delay of 301 days in filing the commercial appeal could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: Condonation under Section 5 in commercial matters must be tested against the object of strict timelines and speedy disposal. The delay here was far beyond the period for which exceptional condonation could be considered, and the applicants were found negligent in not making timely efforts to obtain the certified copy or monitor the case through their legal department and counsel. Negligence, inaction, and lack of bona fides were treated as fatal to the request for condonation.

Conclusion: The delay was not condonable and the refusal to condone the delay was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the refusal to condone delay failed, and the limitation ruling of the High Court was affirmed, leaving the commercial appeal time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: In commercial disputes, the requirement to supply copies of judgments under the amended procedural rule is directory, not a substitute for litigant diligence, and long delays caused by negligence or inaction do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

---