The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a written statement filed in a commercial suit during the COVID-19 limitation extension period cannot be rejected for delay. In the case of Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd., Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath clarified that the court’s suo motu extension orders apply to the period prescribed for filing written statements. This decision, reiterated on October 8, 2025, ensures that litigants are not penalised for delays caused by the extraordinary disruptions of the pandemic.
The ruling addresses a fundamental conflict between the strict timelines of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the judiciary’s emergency powers. Typically, a defendant has an initial 30 days to file a written statement, with a hard outer limit of 120 days. Failure to meet this deadline usually results in the right to a defence being forfeited. However, the apex court found that demanding compliance during the “bleak days for humanity” caused by the pandemic was both impractical and preposterous.
The court’s decision relies on orders passed in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. These mandates effectively paused the clock for all legal proceedings nationwide. While Supreme Court guidelines for summary judgments in commercial suits maintain efficiency, the court prioritised substantive justice over technical defaults in this instance. By excluding the period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, the court provided a safety net for those unable to access courtrooms or physical legal files.
Exclusion period for computing limitation in commercial suits
The judgment establishes a clear framework for how time is calculated for filings affected by the pandemic. For any proceeding where the limitation period expired during the height of the crisis, a minimum grace period of 90 days was granted starting from March 1, 2022. This extension applied even to “special laws” that otherwise prohibit extensions beyond a fixed statutory cap.
In the specific case of Prakash Corporates, the suit was instituted on December 21, 2020. The 120-day limit for the written statement was May 5, 2021, yet the trial court and the Chhattisgarh High Court had initially declined the application to file the statement. The Supreme Court overturned these lower court decisions, asserting that administrative orders and court closures made it impossible for defendants to meet standard deadlines.
| Period or Statute | Status or Requirement | Legal Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 15, 2020 – Feb 28, 2022 | Suo Motu Exclusion | Period excluded from all limitation counts |
| March 1, 2022 | Extension Commencement | 90-day minimum period begins for expired limits |
| 120-Day Limit | Commercial Courts Act | Statutory bar overridden by COVID extension |
| Section 38 CP Act, 2019 | Consumer Protection | Bar on delay overridden for filings up to 2026 |
Extension of relief to Consumer Protection Act cases
The impact of this ruling reaches into other specialized legal areas. On May 17, 2026, the Supreme Court applied this same logic to a consumer case involving a builder. Although Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, imposes a strict 45-day bar for filing written statements, the court allowed a belated filing by citing the COVID-19 extension of limitation. This suggests that the emergency orders serve as a blanket shield against various statutory deadlines.
High Courts in Delhi and Calcutta have also moved to align their procedures with these mandates. The Calcutta High Court, for instance, had to re-evaluate cases where summons were served just before the pandemic began. These developments highlight how the 120-day limit for filing written statements, while generally mandatory, is subject to the supreme power of the court to ensure equity during national emergencies.
Precedence of Article 142 over statutory bars
By invoking Article 142 read with Article 141, the Supreme Court ensured its pandemic-era orders carried the force of law over conflicting statutes. This protects the rules on explaining delays in commercial filings from being interpreted in a way that would unfairly penalize a party for lockdowns. The court made it clear that “complete justice” must outweigh rigid legislative timelines during a crisis.
And while these protections are robust for cases spanning the exclusion period, the standard rules have returned to prominence for newer suits. For litigation initiated after the pandemic period subsided, the strict deadlines of the Commercial Courts Act are once again being enforced by trial and appellate courts. The COVID-19 relief remains a specific exception for a specific era of disruption.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the COVID-19 extension apply to all commercial suits today?
No, the extension specifically applies to filings where the limitation period expired between March 15, 2020, and February 28, 2022. For suits filed in 2026 where the deadlines fall outside this window, the standard statutory limits apply.
What is the minimum grace period granted after February 2022?
The Supreme Court directed that if a limitation period expired during the exclusion window, a minimum of 90 days would be available from March 1, 2022. If the balance of the original limitation period was longer than 90 days, that longer period was made available.
Can a written statement in a consumer case also benefit from this delay?
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled on May 17, 2026, that the COVID-19 limitation extension overrides the statutory bar in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This allows written statements to be accepted even if they exceed the standard 45-day limit, provided they fall within the scope of the pandemic relief orders.