Dismissed

M/S. Royaloak Incorporation Private Limited v. Delhivery Limited

Karnataka HC16 Sept 2026COMAP/495/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a commercial appeal challenging an order that upheld an arbitral award directing payment of Rs. 67,15,000 with interest for unpaid services. The court found no violation of public policy or patent illegality in the award.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; arbitral award of Rs. 67,15,000 with interest upheld.

M/S. Royaloak Incorporation Private Limited Vs Delhivery Limited — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:50627-DB COMAP No. 495 of 2025

¶3

CNR: KAHC010618512025

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN

¶10

COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 495 OF 2025

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

M/S. ROYALOAK INCORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR, NO.5, RAJ SQUARE, VIJAYA BANK COLONY BANASWADI OUTER RING ROAD, BENGALURU-560 043 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI. S.MATHAN

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI. BHARADWAJ K R., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

DELHIVERY LIMITED HAVING ITS OFFICE AT N24-N-34, S24-S34, AIR CARGO, LOGISTICS CENTRE-II, OPPOSITE GATE, 6 CARGO TERMINAL, IGI AIRPORT, NEW DELHI-110037 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. HARISH KUMAR

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. POORNIMA HATTI., FOR C/R(CP No.19066/25))

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:50627-DB COMAP No. 495 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CNR: KAHC010618512025

¶23

THIS COMAP / COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13 (1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.08.2025 IN COM.AP NO.65/2025, PASSED BY THE LXXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-86), ON THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ARBITRAL WARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED SOLE ARBITRATOR DATED 8.11.2024 IN AC NO.328/2022,AND TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶28

T he present appeal under Section 13(1) (A) of the

¶29

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.08.2025 passed in Commercial Appeal No. 65/2025, whereby the appeal preferred under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 impugning the arbitral award dated 08.11.2024 in Arbitration Case No. 328/2022, has

¶30

been dismissed .

¶31

2. B y the impugned award dated 08.11.2024, the

¶32

learned Sole Arbitrator allowed the claim of the respondent-

¶33

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:50627-DB COMAP No. 495 of 2025

¶36

CNR: KAHC010618512025

¶37

claimant for a sum of Rs.67,15,000/- t owards unpaid dues for

¶38

the services performed, along with interest at the rate of 1% per annum as prescribed under clause 5.3 of the agreement between the parties from the date of payment till the date of actual payment, subject to the claimant furnishing an indemnity bonds in respect of all 26 invoices. The claimant was directed to furnish the indemnity bonds within a period of two weeks.

¶39

On appeal, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal holding that none of the grounds mentioned under subsections (2) and (2A) of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be made out.

¶40

4 . The scope of Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is same as that of Section 34 of the said Act. Therefore, interference would be warranted only if the award suffers from violation of public policy or if there is a case of illegally refusing to interfere with the award.

¶41

We have considered the submissions and perused the record.

¶42

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:50627-DB COMAP No. 495 of 2025

¶45

CNR: KAHC010618512025

¶46

We do not find any such violation of public policy or

¶47

any patent illegality in the award passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator. We find no substance in this appeal. Therefore, the

¶48

appeal is dismissed .

¶49

No costs.

¶50

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶51

Sd/(H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN) JUDGE

¶52

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

M/S. Royaloak Incorporation Private Limited v. Delhivery Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Royaloak Incorporation Private Limited v. Delhivery Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases