TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1528
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a civil suit against the petitioners herein for recovery of Rs. 26,59,34,854/- with interest at the rate of 15.75 per cent per annum calculated quarterly till realization from 12.11.2014 on the basis of the award passed by the MSME Council Kanpur. 4. In filing the statutory appeal, there was a delay of 301 days as noted above. In such circumstances, the petitioners herein prayed for condonation of delay. The High Court declined to condone the delay on the ground that no sufficient cause was assigned by the petitioners for the purpose of condonation of delay. 5. Mr. Saurabh Kripal, the learned Senior counsel along with Mr. Zain A. Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners put forward before us two submissions for our consideration: (i) According to him the High Court committed a serious error in dismissing the commercial appeal on the ground of limitation without considering the true purport of the provisions of Order XX Rule 1 CPC inserted specially for the commercial courts. (ii) The High Court failed to take into consideration an important question of law that the pronouncement of the judgment in the open court in accordance with the amended ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....908), as amended by this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by this Act shall prevail." (iii) Section 13 of the Act, 2015 provides for appeals. The same reads thus: "13. Appeals from decrees of Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions.-(1) Any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court below the level of a District Judge may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Court within a period of sixty days from the date of judgment or order. (1A) Any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court at the level of District Judge exercising original civil jurisdiction or, as the case may be, Commercial Division of a High Court may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Division of that High Court within a period of sixty days from the date of the judgment or order: Provided that an appeal shall lie from such orders passed by a Commercial Division or a Commercial Court that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) as amended by this Act and section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) (2) Notwithstanding anything contained....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spute through electronic material or otherwise". The argument canvassed on behalf of the petitioners is that the aforesaid expression should be construed as mandatory and not directory. In other words, the argument is that the period of limitation would start only after the copy of the judgment is provided to the party concerned through any one of the modes as provided in law. 10. We are afraid it is difficult for us to take the view that the provision referred to above is mandatory. It comes to this that till the Registry does not provide the copy of the judgment, though not demanded, the period of limitation would not commence from the date of the pronouncement of the judgment. 11. Placing reliance on the decision of Housing Board, Haryana (supra) it has been contended by the appellants herein that where the rules themselves enjoin a duty of communicating any order or judgment that has been passed by a court or forum, then in such cases, the period of limitation prescribed has to be computed from the date of such communication. 12. In Housing Board, Haryana (supra), the facts germane for our consideration are that three appeals were filed before the State consumer commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... counsel for the answering respondent on 30-10-1992 whereas the counsel for the petitioner got the same on 3-11-1992". From these facts it is abundantly clear that the copies were duly signed and dated by the members of the forum on 30-10-1992. That being so the period of limitation in view of the above discussion will commence from the date on which the copies of the order were ready and made available i.e. 30-10-1992. In the present case the appeals were filed before the State Commission on 30-11-1992 and since 29-11-1992 was Sunday, the appeals were prima facie within time. In these facts and circumstances there was no question of making any application for condonation of delay in filing the appeals as there was no delay at all." 13. Although in Housing Board, Haryana (supra) this Court had held that where the provisions enjoin a duty of communicating any order or judgment that has been pronounced, the limitation for challenging the same would begin from the date of such communication, yet the aforesaid observations cannot be construed devoid of the context in which they were made. A close reading of the decision would indicate that in the said case, after the pronouncement o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rms 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. 18. 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. 19. At this stage, we must look into some of the relevant findings recorded by the High Court. The High Court, in para 18 of its judgment, framed the following question for its consideration. Para 18 reads thus: "18. The question for consideration is: "whether the applicants herein can plead that the period of limitation for filing the appeal to Commercial Appellate Division of this Court did not commence a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd get it set aside by the appellate authority or by the higher forums. 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 b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. 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 yard....