Karnataka High Court
COMAP/246/2026 of M/S OSIYA TRADE LINKS Vs M/S KESAR PACKAGING on 12 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010306512026 NC: 2026:KHC:42741-DB COMAP No. 246 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.246 OF 2026 BETWEEN: M/S.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.246 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
M/S. OSIYA TRADE LINKS,
SITUATED SHED NO.4,
SY.NO.58/1, KACHOHALLI VILLAGE,
LAKSHMIPURA POST,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 562 162,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PROPRIETOR -
MR. KANTILAL JAIN JITENDRA,
ALSO AT:
MR. KANTILAL JAIN JITHENDRA
S/O KANTHILAL JAIN,
R/AT NO.5113, VANI SATEESH,
PRESTIGE SOUTHRIDGE,
HOSAKEREHALLI, BSK 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. C. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
M/S. KESAR PACKAGING
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM SITUATED SHED NO.1,
SURVEY NO.27/1, KITTANAHALLI,
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 562 130
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS
MR. RAGHU SREENIVAS
S/O LATE R. SREENIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
AND SMT. V. ROOPASHREE
W/O RAGHU SREENIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
2.
M/S. BOXCY
A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN,
SITUATED SHED NO.2, SY.NO.27/1,
KITTANAHALLI DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 562 130,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR -
SMT. V. ROOPASHREE.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.23,
RENUKA NILAYA, 32ND MAIN,
BHAVANI LAYOUT, BSK 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAY J.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2)
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1-
A) OF COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 R/W ORDER LXIII RULE 1
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS
IN
COM.O.S.NO.106/2025
ON
THE
FILE
OF
X
ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT
&
SESSIONS
JUDGE
(DEDICATED
COMMERCIAL COURT) , BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT
BENGALURU, SET ASIDE THE EX PARTE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 20.06.2025 THEREIN, SAID COM.O.S.NO.106/2025 BE
DISMISSED AND THIS APPEAL BE ALLOWED WITH COSTS
THROUGHOUT AND GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DECREE AS
THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
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. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning the judgment dated 20.06.2025 passed by the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Dedicated Commercial Court) Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru [the Commercial Court] in Com.O.S.No.106/2025.
2. The present appeal has been filed along with the application- I.A.No.1/2026 seeking condonation of an inordinate delay of 248 days. In the affidavit accompanying the application, the appellant has affirmed that he had no knowledge of the judgment and decree passed in the suit and became aware of the same only when the Non-bailable Warrant [NBW] was issued in the execution proceedings.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no dispute that the respondent had supplied the goods. However, the appellant sent an email calling upon the respondent to take back
HC-KAR
the goods, but the respondent failed to do so. Thus, the appellant was not liable to pay for the goods.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the learned Commercial Court, which records that the appellant [defendant] had refused to receive the summons issued to him. In view of the above, the appellant was proceeded against ex-parte.
5. The learned counsel has also drawn our attention to the application filed before the executing Court in Com.Ex.No.78/2026, wherein the appellant had affirmed that he would pay the balance amount to the respondent in two equal instalments within a period of 45 days and sought recall of the warrants.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that the summons had been refused, as recorded by the learned Commercial Court.
7. In the given circumstances, we are unable to accept the explanation for the delay of 248 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant was aware of the institution of the commercial suit but had consciously chosen not to participate in the proceedings. The delay in filing the present appeal, therefore, cannot be
HC-KAR
condoned. The application-I.A.No.1/2026 is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.
8. Any amount deposited by the appellant with the Registry of this Court shall be transferred to the Commercial Court in Com.Ex.No.78/2026.
Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE
AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4