Supreme Court Questions Accountability, Criticizes Gujarat Commercial Court for 17-Year Delay in Framing Issues
The Gujarat Commercial Civil Court's handling of a recovery litigation that had been languishing for more than 17 years recently caused the Supreme Court to voice serious concerns. The court abruptly ended the plaintiff's opportunity to submit evidence and dismissed the case, which raised significant concerns about justice system accountability, impartiality, and general operation. This was in addition to the egregious delay in outlining the issues.
What is truly shocking,” the Court remarked, “is that the appellant filed the recovery suit back in 2001, and it took the Commercial Civil Court more than 17 years just to frame the issues. Even more troubling is the manner in which the case was then concluded—without giving the plaintiff a fair chance to present evidence. This raises serious concerns about judicial accountability, the need for systemic reforms, and the urgency of improving infrastructure to ensure timely justice.”
The matter was heard by a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh. The appellant had originally approached the Gujarat Commercial Court, which delayed the case for years and ultimately dismissed it. When the appellant turned to the High Court—seeking to appeal and requesting condonation of a 476-day delay—the High Court rejected both the appeal and the condonation plea.
Frustrated and denied a hearing, the appellant moved the Supreme Court. Taking a compassionate stance, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that the system had already made the appellant wait over two decades. “Given these extraordinary circumstances,” the Court said, “the High Court should have shown more empathy and allowed the delay to be condoned.”
In its ruling, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ordered the Commercial Court to give the plaintiff two opportunities to present the remaining evidence—both to be completed before July 31, 2025. If the plaintiff fails to do so, the Commercial Court will have the liberty to close the evidence.
