- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28739-DB COMAP No. 251 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI JETTY SANTOSH REDDY SON OF BHASKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO 2-1/1 GURRAMGUDA HYDERABAD - 501 510 …APPELLANT (BY SRI KESHAVA KUMAR B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MADALAM KIRAN KUMAR SON OF VENKATARAMANA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO 08, FLAT NO 102 SRI SADGURU SAI RESIDENCY KODICHIKKANAHALLI BENGALURU 560076 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI LOKESHA G, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) Digitally signed by K P SWETHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28739-DB COMAP No. 251 of 2026 THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13 (1) OF COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 READ WITH SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, 1908 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.05.2025 PASSED IN COM.O.S.NO.1358/2024 BY THE LXXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (COMMERCIAL COURT). 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 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the above captioned appeal impugning a judgment and decree dated 03.05.2025 passed by the learned LXXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (Commercial Court), Bengaluru [Commercial Court] in Com.O.S.No.1358/2024. 2. The respondent-plaintiff had instituted the said suit seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.45 lacs along with interest at 18% p.a. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28739-DB COMAP No. 251 of 2026 3. There is no dispute that the appellant-defendant had received the amount as stated. However, it was claimed that the said amount was part consideration of `60 lacs, which the respondent had agreed to pay for joining the appellant as a partner in his business of running a bar and restaurant. The appellant had executed a partnership receipt dated 06.11.2020, which indicates that the said consideration of `60 lacs was for purchasing 10% share in the business. Admittedly, the parties did not enter into partnership deed and the appellant has not included the respondent in any business. 4. During the course of the proceedings, the respondent had filed an application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5(1) of 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for securing his claim. The said application was allowed by an order dated 18.12.2024 directing the appellant to furnish a valuable security in respect to the suit claim of `45 lacs within 30 days from the date of the said order. The appellant failed to comply with the said order. Consequently, in view of the non-compliance, the Commercial Court struck off the defence of the appellant. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28739-DB COMAP No. 251 of 2026 5. By the final order, the Commercial Court decreed the suit and held that the appellant is liable to pay a sum of `45 lacs to the respondent, together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. 6. The present appeal has been filed after a delay of 297 days. The appellant has filed an application seeking condonation of the delay along with the appeal, claiming that he was experiencing radiating pain in his lower limbs and faced difficulty in standing, sitting and movement. He has produced MRI reports of lumbar spine, all of which are in almost similar terms. 7. Although it appears that the appellant has a medical condition, however, we are unable to accept that it would be a sufficient cause for not filing the present appeal within the stipulated period. A minor delay in cases of extenuating circumstances may be condoned. However, it would not be apposite to condone the delay of 297 days in matters involving commercial disputes. 8. In Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented By Executive Engineer v. Borse - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28739-DB COMAP No. 251 of 2026 Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd.1, the Supreme Court has observed as under: “53. …The question still arises as to the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to appeals which are governed by a uniform 60-day period of limitation. At one extreme, we have the judgment in N.V. International which does not allow condonation of delay beyond 30 days, and at the other extreme, we have an open-ended provision in which any amount of delay can be condoned, provided sufficient cause is shown. It is between these two extremes that we have to steer a middle course. *** *** *** *** 58. Given the object sought to be achieved under both the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, that is, the speedy resolution of disputes, the expression “sufficient cause” is not elastic enough to cover long delays beyond the period provided by the appeal provision itself. Besides, the expression “sufficient cause” is not itself a loose panacea for the ill pressing negligent and stale claims. *** *** *** *** 63. Given the aforesaid and the object of speedy disposal sought to be achieved both under the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, for appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act or Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, a delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule. In a fit case in which a party has otherwise acted bona fide and not in a negligent manner, a short delay beyond such period can, in the discretion of the court, be condoned, 1 (2021) 6 SCC 460 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28739-DB COMAP No. 251 of 2026 always bearing in mind that the other side of the picture is that the opposite party may have acquired both in equity and justice, what may now be lost by the first party's inaction, negligence or laches." 9. In view of the above, the application-I.A.No.1/2026 seeking condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. 10. The pending interlocutory application stands disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE KPS, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10