Karnataka High Court
COMAP/330/2026 of MR. SANJEEV RAO Vs SHOBHA SRINIVAS REDDY on 10 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:34992-DB COMAP No. 330 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 330 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. MR. SANJEEV RAO MANAGING
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 330 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
MR. SANJEEV RAO
MANAGING PARTNER
S/O RANGAIAH BALLU
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
PRESENTLY R/AT BLOCK 6
APARTMENT NO.104
HILL RIDGE SPRINGS
GACHIBOWLI
HYDERABAD - 500 032
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI BHARGAV K.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SHOBHA SRINIVAS REDDY
D/O LATE T. SRINIVAS REDDY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT No.330, G-BLOCK
SUMADHURA SRINIVASAM
ITPL ROAD, NEXT TO EURO SCHOOL
MAHADEVAPURA
BENGALURU - 560 048
2.
MRS. RADHA AKKIREDDY
PARTNER, M/S NIRJUA NUTRICARE
W/O MADUSUDHAN RAO
Digitally
signed by
VEERENDRA
KUMAR K M
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT 673, FLAT NO.301
1ST MAIN, AECS LAYOUT
'C' BLOCK, BROOKEFIELD
BENGALURU - 560 032
3.
M/S NIRUJA NUTRICARE
PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
609, 1ST FLOOR
LAKHSMI CHAMBERS
AECS LAYOUT C BLOCK
BROOKEFIELD, BENGALURU - 560 037
REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1)
THIS COMMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
13(1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE PASSED BY THE LXXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT), BENGALURU IN
COM.O.S.NO.347/2021 DATED 18.03.2023 (ANNEXURE-B) & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
HC-KAR
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 a judgment and decree dated 18.03.2023 passed by the LXXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [Commercial Court] in Com.O.S.No.347/2021.
2. The present appeal has been filed after a delay of 1140 days. The appellant has also filed an application-I.A.No.1/2026 seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal.
3. The affidavit accompanying the said application sets out the appellant's explanation for the said delay. It is stated that the appellant had filed an appeal (COMAP No.139/2023) prior to filing the present appeal. But had withdrawn the same on 23.08.2023, stating that the decree was yet to be drawn up by the learned Commercial Court. The decree was drawn on 30.01.2024. The appellant affirms that after the withdrawal of the earlier appeal, time was consumed in obtaining the duly drawn decree, securing certified copies and collecting relevant papers. Paragraph No.6 of the affidavit is reproduced below:
HC-KAR
"6. I further state that, after withdrawal of the earlier appeal, time was necessarily consumed in obtaining the duly drawn decree, securing the certified copies and collecting the relevant papers and records required for filing a proper and comprehensive appeal. The present delay has thus occurred on account of procedural and technical reasons and not because of any negligence or inaction on my part."
4. As is apparent from the above, the appellant has not provided any specific details as to the time consumed in the specific acts. The appellant claims that the delay has occurred on account of "procedural and technical reasons". However, there is no indication as to what are the procedural or technical reasons that prevented the appellant from filing the present appeal in time.
5. In addition to the above explanation, the appellant also states that he was suffering from ill health due to old age, and therefore, he was not in a position to personally coordinate the litigation in Bengaluru. He also filed an MRI report dated 25.08.2023, which indicates that the appellant had suffered an injury involving the medial collateral ligament in the left knee. This report does not present any sufficient cause that prevented the appellant from filing the present appeal within the stipulated period.
HC-KAR
6. Furthermore, the contention that the appellant was suffering from old age is also erroneous, as the medical report records the appellant's age as 62 years.
7. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation accounting for the entire period of delay, the appellant has failed to establish 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay.
8. In view of the above, the application seeking condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as well.
9. All pending applications stand disposed of.
Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE
KMV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 26