- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4760 WP No. 27554 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 27554 OF 2025 (GM-CON) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER, GOKULA GOLD PVT LTD., RAMANJANEYA PLAZA, NEAR RAMANJANEYA HADWARE, HADADI ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577002 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY VASANTHALAKSHMI ALIAS N LAKSHMI …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANISH ACHARYA., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI D K MAHESHWARAPPA S/O KARIBASAPPA Digitally signed by SARITHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4760 WP No. 27554 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O KATANAYAKANAHA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE THUMBIGERE ASLI VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DAVANAGERE IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 60/2023 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE - A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4760 WP No. 27554 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act 2013, is aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.2023 in Consumer Complaint No.60/2023 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Davanagere [for short, 'the District Forum']. The District Forum has directed the petitioner to receive the balance amount payable and return the gold jewellery pledged observing that in the event the petitioner cannot return the gold jewellery, it must return the value of the jewellery with the direction to pay Rs.10,000/- towards physical trauma. Mr. Anish Acharya, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must intervene because the petitioner's transaction with the respondent's transaction is a loan transaction and the respondent would not be a "Consumer" as - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4760 WP No. 27554 of 2025 defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [for short, 'the Act'], but the District Forum has proceeded to allow the respondent's complaint with a direction as aforesaid overlooking the nature of the transaction and the definition as contemplated in law. However, the learned counsel cannot dispute that the question whether the respondent would be a "Consumer" is an aspect that would be within the appellate jurisdiction as contemplated under the Act and with this alternative remedy, this Court is not inclined to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this stage, Mr. Anish Acharya submits that this Court may also consider that the petitioner, for bonafide reasons, could not avail the appellate remedy immediately after the District Forum's impugned order or within the timelines that are contemplated. This Court is of the view that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4760 WP No. 27554 of 2025 because the petitioner can seek condonation of delay subject to showing sufficient cause for the delay, this will also not be persuasive. As such, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy seeking condonation of the delay in filing such appeal observing that the petitioner shall be entitled to seek exclusion of the time spent in prosecuting this petition. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB