Award of interest on admitted commercial liability without a specified commencement date implies entitlement to pendente lite interest.

The petitioner filed a writ petition in 2013 seeking payment of ₹30.32 lacs for radiology items supplied to the respondents.

The High Court allowed the petition on 19.04.2022, ordering the release of the admitted liability with 6% interest within six weeks, increasing to 12% upon default.

During subsequent contempt proceedings (CCP(S) No. 297/2023), the respondents paid the principal and 12% interest calculated only from the date of the 2022 order.

The petitioner sought a review, alleging an inadvertent omission by the court regarding the commencement date of the interest.

Along with the review, the petitioner filed CM No. 6700/2024 to condone a 907-day delay, citing time spent pursuing the contempt petition.

1. Whether the delay of 907 days in filing the review petition can be condoned under the doctrine of bona fide pursuit of another remedy.

2. Whether the original judgment dated 19.04.2022 contained an ambiguity or inadvertent mistake regarding the start date of interest that necessitates clarification/review.

The court applied the principle of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act, specifically recognizing bona fide pursuit of a remedy in a wrong forum or related proceeding (contempt) as a valid ground.

Regarding interest, the court applied the principle of reasonable and harmonious construction of judgments.

In commercial transactions, where the court awards interest but is silent on the start date, the context of the pleadings and the nature of the liability (commercial vs. friendly loan) dictate that interest should typically run from the date of filing the suit/petition (pendente lite) to ensure the award is not rendered illusory.

The court first condoned the 907-day delay, finding that the petitioner was pursuing contempt proceedings under a bona fide impression that the ambiguity would be resolved there.

The court noted that since the transaction was purely commercial (supply of medical items), the petitioner was entitled to interest on the outstanding amount.

It held that if the Writ Court had intended to deny pendente lite interest, it would have explicitly stated so by making interest contingent only upon a future default; instead, the court had ordered the release of liability "along with" interest.

To avoid making the interest award insignificant, the court interpreted the original judgment as intending interest to run from the date of the writ petition's filing.

The court clarified the order dated 19.04.2022, holding that the petitioner is entitled to 6% interest per annum on ₹30.32 lacs from the date of filing the writ petition (2013) up to six weeks after the 2022 judgment was served, and 12% interest per annum thereafter until the date of actual realization.

The respondents were directed to pay the balance interest accordingly.