- 1 - HC-KAR 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: 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 - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010287302026 NC: 2026:KHC:52507-DB COMAP No. 235 of 2026 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) - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010287302026 NC: 2026:KHC:52507-DB COMAP No. 235 of 2026 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 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. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010287302026 NC: 2026:KHC:52507-DB COMAP No. 235 of 2026 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 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010287302026 NC: 2026:KHC:52507-DB COMAP No. 235 of 2026 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 - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010287302026 NC: 2026:KHC:52507-DB COMAP No. 235 of 2026 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. 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 - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010287302026 NC: 2026:KHC:52507-DB COMAP No. 235 of 2026 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