- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33215 WP No. 21217 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 21217 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: TVS MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.12, KHADER NAWAZ KHAN ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-600006 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR.P. SUDHIR, SENIORGM LEGAL …PETITIONER (BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. GEORGE JOSEPH.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S BAGARIA MOTORS PROPRIETRY CONCERN H8, RICO AREA N H 11 FATHEPUR SIKAR 332301 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (PROPRIETOR) M.S. NATARAJA MURTHY (SOLE ARBITRATOR) NO. 242, 67TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKRAM G., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33215 WP No. 21217 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.06.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN COM A.P. NO. 141/2023 (COMMERCIAL COURT), ON I.A. NO. 2 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 34(3) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 READ WITH SECTION 14 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 SEEKING EXCLUSION OF THE PERIOD FROM 07.12.2015 TILL 11.09.2023 FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION IN FILING OF COM A.P. NO. 141/2023 (ANNEXURE -A) AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the concerned Court in Com.A.P.No.141/2023 allowing an application I.A.No.2 filed under Section 34(3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 R/w Section 14 of the Limitation Act seeking to exclude the period from 07.12.2015 till 11.09.2023, for the purpose of computing the period of limitation in filing the Commercial Appeal. 2. Heard Sri Udhay Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Vikram G., learned counsel appearing for the respondent. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33215 WP No. 21217 of 2025 3. It is not necessary to trace back the history of the agreement between the parties. The dispute between the parties results in drawing of an Arbitral Award on 28.10.2015 at the Jurisdiction in Bangalore. The respondent challenging the Arbitral Award filed an appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinaftere referred to as 'the Act, 1996' for short) before the concerned Court at Fatehpur Shekhawati, Sikar, Rajasthan. 4. Owing to the fact that because the respondent herein was appointed as an Authorized Service Centre ('ACS' for short) by the TVS Motor Company in Fatehpur, Sikar, the appeal under Section 34 of the Act had been entertained by the concerned Court. 5. The petitioner herein called the same in question before the High Court of Rajasthan in a writ petition bearing W.P.No.15490/2016. The said writ petition comes to be disposed of by setting aside the proceedings entertained by the concerned Court under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, in terms of the order dated 11.09.2023. Therefore, the day on which the petition was instituted before the concerned Court under - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33215 WP No. 21217 of 2025 Section 34 was on 21.10.2015 till the date on which the Rajasthan High Court set aside the proceedings upto 11.09.2023 was sought to be excluded by the respondent for the purpose of computation of limitation for the proceedings to be instituted before the Jurisdictional Court at Bengaluru in Com.A.P.No.141/2023. The application comes to be allowed. The allowing of which has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it was not a bona fide error on the part of the respondent to have chosen the erroneous jurisdiction. It was deliberate. In the light of it being deliberate, the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act should not have been conferred upon the respondent and Com.A.P.No.141/2023 ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay itself. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner bona fide or legally advised to knock at the doors of the jurisdictional Court under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 had filed the petition solely on this score that the Authorized Service Centre by the TVS Motor - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33215 WP No. 21217 of 2025 Company was at Fatehpur, Sikar. The proceedings ended in the writ petition being entertained having been filed by the TVS Motor Company and the proceedings being annulled. The initiation and annulment have taken 8 years. Those 8 years is sought to be excluded by seeking benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 8. The concerned Court by following the order, allows the application, accepting the fact that it was a bona fide mistake on the part of the respondent to have approached the Court at Fatehpur, Sikar. 9. In the light of the aforesaid facts, prima facie, it was a bona fide error on the part of the respondent to have approached the Court at Fatehpur, Sekar, filing an application/appeal under Section 34 of the Act, 1996. The High Court of Rajasthan interpreting the seat and venue of arbitration, sets aside the order on 11.09.2023. Therefore, the petitioner was prosecuting the matter before the wrong forum for over 8 years. Section 14 benefit of the Limitation Act is to be given to the respondent, as the matter was pending before the High Court of Rajasthan for over 8 years and the pendency - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33215 WP No. 21217 of 2025 of the matter before the High Court should not prejudice any litigant. In that light, finding no merit in the order, action warranting interference in the hands of this Court. 10. The dispute is looming large since 2013, 11 years have passed by and the proceedings were instituted in the year 2015, 10 years have passed by. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to infuse finality into the proceedings by directing the concerned Court to conclude the proceedings within an outer limit of 6 months, if not earlier. 11. It is needless to observe that the parties to the lis would co-operate in the closure of the proceedings. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61