Karnataka High Court
COMAP/235/2026 of SPECIALITY RESTAURANTS LIMITED Vs MR. KURIEN THOMAS on 23 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010287302026 NC: 2026:KHC:52507-DB COMAP No. 235 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.235 OF 2026 BETWEEN:
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.235 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
SPECIALITY RESTAURANTS LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT,
UNIWORTH HOUSE, 3A,
GURUSADAY ROAD, KOLKATA-700 019.
HAVING ITS CORPORATE ADDRESS AT,
B/25, MORYA LANDMARK I, 4TH FLOOR, OFF NEW
LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (WEST),
MUMBAI-400 053, THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE, MR. AVINASH KINHIKAR,
DULY AUTHORIZED VIDE BOARD RESOLUTION
DATED 10TH FEBRUARY, 2022.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHINTAN CHINNAPPA M., ADVOCATE AND
SRI. N. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
MR. KURIEN THOMAS
PROPRIETOR OF M/S KALARIKAL PROPERTIES,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
SON OF LATE MR. K. THOMAS,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT,
WOOD HOUSE, 526, RANKA PARK,
Digitally
signed by
VASANTHA
KUMARY B K
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
5TH BLOCK, BANGALORE -560 027.
ALSO HAVING ADDRESS AT NO. D/202,
CENTURY PARK APARTMENT NO. 48,
RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027,
KARNATAKA.
2.
MR. MOHAMED OMAR FAROOK,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
SON OF ABDUL SHAKOOR,
3.
MRS. NASIMA FAROOK SUNDKA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
WIFE OF MR. MOHAMED OMAR FAROOK
BOTH RESIDING AT NO.315,
08TH CROSS, LAKSHMI ROAD,
DIVYASHREE CHAMBERS, SHANTINAGAR,
WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU - 560 027.
4.
THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
SIB HOUSE, MISSION QUARTERS,
T. B. ROAD, THRISSUR, KERALA-680 001.
REGIONAL OFFICE AT: SIB ARCADE,
NO. 61, WHEELER ROAD, COX TOWN,
BENGALURU-560 005,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. AMITHA JAYAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE,
SRI. HARSHAVARDHANA M., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. AJESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. THANISH C. REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE FOR C/R2;
SRI. FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R3 SERVED)
HC-KAR
THIS COMMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
13(1-A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015, READ WITH
ORDER XLIII RULE 1(R) READ WITH SECTION 104 OF THE
CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT COMMERCIAL APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.03.2026
PASSED BY THE LXXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-83), BENGALURU IN IA NO.5/2025 IN
COM.O.S.NO.1443/2024 (ANNEXURE-A), THEREBY ALLOWING
IA NO.5/2025 AS PRAYED FOR THEREIN.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The present Commercial appeal has been filed under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, impugning the order dated 06.03.2026 passed on IA No.5 filed by the plaintiff in Commercial O S No.1443/2024 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 R/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Court of LXXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
HC-KAR
2. Mr. Chintan Chinnappa, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits, that the appellant is carrying on Chinese restaurant in the brand name "Mainland China" from the demised premises situated at Church Street, Bengaluru. The lease which was executed between the owner/respondent No.1 in favour of the appellant is valid till 2034. However, in the meantime, as the respondent No.1 has allegedly failed to discharge the liability of the loan taken by him from respondent No.4-Bank, the auction proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act have been carried out and the property has been auctioned in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Dispute regarding auction proceedings is pending before this Court. The Commercial Court has granted an interim injunction vide order dated 06.03.2025 in favour of the appellant under Order No. XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 R/w Section 151 of CPC to maintain status quo with respect of any action/steps which might be taken with respect to the demised premises being property bearing No. 14,(Old No.32) in BBMP Ward No.76, Church Street, Bengaluru, and the appellant who is the plaintiff in Commercial O.S.No.1443/2024 has been permitted to continue
HC-KAR
to use and occupy the demised premises for conducting its business i.e. a Chinese restaurant in the brand name "Mainland China" from the demised premises till further orders.
3. Mr. Chintan Chinnappa, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Commercial Court has seriously erred in not permitting the petitioner to carry out repair and interior works in the demised premises inasmuch as this would enhance the value of the property. The demised premises is not in a good condition as of today and as the appellant intends to carry out the business of running a restaurant in the Brand name "Mainland China", certain repairs are required to be carried out to suit the running of the restaurant business. He further submits that the appellant will carry out the repair work/strengthening work as well as interiors at its own costs and will not claim any equity for carrying out the repair work for continuing to occupy the demised premises beyond the lease period or before that if some order is passed for its eviction by the competent Court. So far as the rent is concerned, he submitted that the appellant will deposit the
HC-KAR
same before the Commercial Court as agreed under the lease deed.
4. The learned counsel representing the respondents though have objected and contested the appeal, but we are of the view that no serious objection can be taken for such a prayer, when the appellant is willing to spend the amount for renovation/interiors and strengthening of the building in question without making any structural changes and further the appellant will not claim any equity or adjustment of the amount spend by it from the rent or otherwise and the expenditure here would be of its own.
5. We therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 06.03.2026 passed by the Commercial Court on IA No.5 in Commercial O.S.No.1443/2024 and permit the appellant to carry out repair/renovation/interior and reinforcement of the building, if so required without making any structural changes. For this expenditure incurred to suit the business of the appellant for running the restaurant in the brand name "Mainland China", the appellant shall not be entitled to claim any equity or adjustment of the amount which
HC-KAR
would be spent, or expenditure incurred for carrying out renovation/interior work and reinforcement of the building without making any structural changes.
Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/- (H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN) JUDGE
NG CT:SM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10