##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.233/2025 D by ig A it R a S ll H y I s F ig A ned BETWEEN:

B Lo A c H a A ti R on K :

H H A I G N H AM UNION OF INDIA COURT OF REP. BY THE KARNATAKA SRI. PREM RANJAN KUMAR CHIEF ENGINEER, SOUTH RAILWAY PARK TOWN, CHENNAI 600003.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.S. VENKATANARAYANA, CGC)

AND:

MALU SLEEPERS LIMITED (FORMERLY MALU SLEEPERS PVT. LTD.)

NO.8, II FLOOR, I MAIN ROAD GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

…RESPONDENT THIS COMAP/COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13 (1-A) OF COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN COM.A.P.NO.56/2023 ON THE FILE OF LXXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-88) (COMMERCIAL COURT) AND RECORDS IN A.C.NO.94/2020 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED SOLE ARBITRATOR, ARBITRATION CENTER, BENGALURU. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.07.2024 PASSED BY THE LXXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-88) IN COM.AP NO.56/2023 & ETC.

##PAGE2##

THIS COMAP HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON

25.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

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

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2024 passed in Com.A.P.No.56/2023 by the LXXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-88) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commercial Court').

2. The appellant filed an application before the Commercial Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the arbitral award passed by the Sole Arbitrator dated 23.06.2022 in A.C.No.94/2020. The Commercial Court, after considering the material on record, proceeded to dismiss the same. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed along with an application in I.A.No.1/2025 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay of 220 days in filing the appeal.

##PAGE3##

3. Sri.B.S.Venkatanarayana, learned Central Government counsel appearing for the appellant submits that one-S.Rathi, Deputy Chief Engineer, Southern Railway has filed an affidavit and an additional affidavit on behalf of the appellant along with an application seeking for condonation of delay. It is submitted that the impugned order is passed beyond the scope of jurisdiction and the same is also in conflict with the public policy, which is required to be considered on merits. It is further submitted that the delay in filing this appeal is due to the necessary administrative approvals that were to be obtained by the appellant, which is bona fide in nature.

##PAGE4##

Hence, he seeks to condone the delay of 220 days in filing the application and seeks to hear the matter on merits.

4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced, judgments relied and the material on record.

5. The point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is "Whether the appellant has shown "sufficient cause" to condone the delay of 220 days in filing the appeal?"

6. The answer to the above point is in the negative for the following reasons:

a) Before considering the cause shown by the appellant seeking for condonation of delay of 220 days, it would be useful to refer to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject. In the case of JHARKAND URJA UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. AND ANOTHER VS. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 910 at paragraphs

##PAGE5##

20 and 21, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document