IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.386/2024

BETWEEN:

1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

PUBLIC WORKS PORT AND INLAND WATER

TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT

Digitally MANDYA DIVISION, signed by MANDYA - 571401.

RUPA V

Location :

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

High Court

Of TO GOVERNMENT

Karnataka PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

VIKASA SOUDHA

BENGALURU - 560001.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. SANTOSH S. GOGI, AAG WITH

SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K. AGA)

AND:

MR. M.P. NRUPATHUNGA

S/O PUTTASWAMY

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

R/AT NO.284, 3RD CROSS

BANDIGOWDA LAYOUT MANDYA - 571401 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. YASHODHAR HEGDE & SRI. ARYA KUMAR, ADVS., FOR SRI. AJAY J.N. ADV.,)

- - -

THIS COMAP/COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13 (1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015, READ WITH SECTION 37(1)(C) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO ADMIT THE PRESENT COMMERCIAL APPEAL AND CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN COM.A.P. NO.198/2023, DATED 30.03.2024, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LXXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 85) (COMMERCIAL COURT) AT BENGALURU. ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.03.2024, PASSED IN COM. A.P. NO.198/2023, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LXXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 85) (COMMERCIAL COURT) AT BENGALURU & ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), challenging the judgment dated 30.03.2024 passed in Com.A.P.No.198/2023 by the LXXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-85) (Commercial Court), wherein the respondent's application under Section 34 of the Act was allowed-in-

part.

2. Sri.Santosh S.Gogi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for Smt.Prathibha R.K., learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants as well as Sri.Yashodhar Hegde and Sri.Arya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent fairly submit that the Commercial Court has erred in partly allowing the application filed by the respondent under Section 34 of the Act, by modifying the award of the Arbitrator dated

17.10.2023. It is submitted that the respondent-claimant has argued the issue with regard to the limitation to seek the relief for the damages which has not been considered by the Commercial Court. However, the Commercial Court has proceeded to modify the award of the Arbitrator which is impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GAYATRI BALASAMY Vs. ISG NOVASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED .

3. Learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondent refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in BOMBAY SLUM REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, (2024) 7 SCC 218 and submits that the Commercial Court, without assigning detailed reasons with regard to the contentions advanced by the parties to the proceeding,

1 2025 SCC Online SC 986

partly allowed the application filed under Section 34 of the Act, summarily, by modifying the award.

4. We have heard the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants, the learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record, more particularly the reasoning of the Commercial Court. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on both the sides.

5. The Commercial Court, though assigned reasons for arriving at the conclusion in partly allowing the application filed by the respondent under Section 34 of the Act, has proceeded to award damages o