- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2681-DB COMAP No. 569 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 569 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S RAVI SECURITY BUREAU NO.489/3, I FLOOR, D SUBBAIAH ROAD, MYSORE-570004 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI A VENKATESH @ VENKATADASAPPA, S/O LATE ANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT M. 569, 2ND FLOOR, KAVERI APARTMENT, SHARADADEVI NAGAR, MYSORE-570023 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MOHAN B.K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA HAVING ITS HEAD QUARTERS AT NO.27, J N ROAD, CALCUTTA, REP BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL 2. THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2681-DB COMAP No. 569 of 2024 STATE UNIT KARNATAKA AND GOA VASUDEV BHAVAN, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560078 …RESPONDENTS THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SEC.13(1-A) OF COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.06.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE COURT OF LXXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU., IN COM. OS NO.361/2019 IN SO FAR AS DISMISSING THE SUIT, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL. 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 MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The present appeal has been filed after an inordinate delay of 486 days. The appellant has also filed an application seeking condonation of delay. The appellant has filed an affidavit in support of the application affirming that he was suffering from cardiac problems and he was under regular treatment at various hospitals at Mysore since 2023. It is affirmed that he was advised not to travel long distances and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2681-DB COMAP No. 569 of 2024 avoid stress and in this backdrop, he could not meet his advocate after the judgment was pronounced to seek instructions whether to prefer an appeal. 2. We are unable to accept that the reasons set out in the affidavit reflect sufficient cause, which prevented the appellant from filing the present appeal. It is also noted that the affidavit is not supported by any material or documents which would establish the grounds for delay as stated. 3. In Government of Maharashtra v. M/s Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. : (2021) 6 SCC 460, the Supreme Court has observed as under: 55. Reading the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act as a whole, it is clear that when Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is read with either Article 116 or 117 of the Limitation Act or Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, the object and context provided by the aforesaid statutes, read as a whole, is the speedy disposal of appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. To read Section 5 of the Limitation Act consistently with the aforesaid object, it is necessary to discover as to what the expression “sufficient cause” means in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2681-DB COMAP No. 569 of 2024 the context of condoning delay in filing appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. ** ** ** ** 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 of 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, 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2681-DB COMAP No. 569 of 2024 be lost by the first party's inaction, negligence or laches. 4. Given the legislative intent of fixing firm timelines for proceedings relating to commercial disputes, it would not be apposite for this Court to adopt a liberal approach, which would run contrary to the legislative intent. 5. We also note that the present appeal was listed before the concerned Registrar on 13.01.2025 and the objections were cured more than 10 months thereafter. 6. In view of the above, the application seeking condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is rejected as well. SD/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE SD/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1