Dismissed¶6

M/S Ravi Security Bureau v. the Geological Survey of India

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2026COMAP/569/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay rejected; 486-day delay; Section 13(1-A) Commercial Courts Act 2015; commercial appeal COMAP 569/2024 Karnataka HC; sufficient cause; cardiac ailment affidavit without documentary support; Borse Brothers (2021) 6 SCC 460 relied upon; firm timelines legislative intent; objections cured late after Registrar listing 13.01.2025; appeal against dismissal of suit Com. OS 361/2019 rejected.

What did the court decide?

This Court is unable to accept that the reasons set out in the appellant's affidavit reflect sufficient cause preventing the filing of the appeal within time. ¶2

M/S Ravi Security Bureau Vs the Geological Survey of India — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 486 days in filing the commercial appeal under S.13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 should be condoned on the grounds pleaded in the appellant's affidavit.

¶1

Court's answer

This Court is unable to accept that the reasons set out in the appellant's affidavit reflect sufficient cause preventing the filing of the appeal within time.

¶2

Ratio / Principle

The affidavit supporting condonation is not supported by any material or documents establishing the grounds for delay as stated.

¶2

Key takeaways

Given the legislative intent of fixing firm timelines for commercial disputes, it would not be apposite to adopt a liberal approach to condonation, which would run contrary to that legislative intent; accordingly, the condonation application is rejected and consequently the appeal is rejected.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

COMAP No. 569 of 2024 (High Court of Karnataka, Division Bench: Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice, authoring the oral judgment, and C.M. Poonacha, J.; decided 19-01-2026). Commercial appeal under Sec.13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2023 of the LXXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Com. OS No.361/2019 dismissing the suit. Filed after an inordinate delay of 486 days with a condonation application pleading the appellant's cardiac ailment and treatment at Mysore hospitals since 2023. The Court held the affidavit disclosed no sufficient cause and was unsupported by any material or documents; relying on Government of Maharashtra v. M/s Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd., (2021) 6 SCC 460 (speedy disposal under the Arbitration and Commercial Courts Acts; delay beyond the prescribed period to be condoned only as an exception), and noting the legislative intent of firm timelines and that registry objections were cured more than ten months after listing on 13.01.2025, the Court declined a liberal approach. Condonation application rejected; appeal rejected.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:2681-DB COMAP No. 569 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 569 OF 2024

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

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

¶13

(BY SRI. MOHAN B.K, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA HAVING ITS HEAD QUARTERS AT NO.27, J N ROAD, CALCUTTA, REP BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL

¶16

THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:2681-DB COMAP No. 569 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

STATE UNIT KARNATAKA AND GOA VASUDEV BHAVAN, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560078

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶24

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶27

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

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:2681-DB COMAP No. 569 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

In Government of Maharashtra v. M/s Borse Brothers

¶33

Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. : (2021) 6 SCC 460 , the Supreme Court has observed as under:

¶34

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

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:2681-DB COMAP No. 569 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

the context of condoning delay in filing appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

¶38

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…. ** ** ** **

¶39

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

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:2681-DB COMAP No. 569 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

be lost by the first party's inaction, negligence or laches.

¶43

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.

¶44

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.

¶45

In view of the above, the application seeking condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is rejected as well.

¶46

SD/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶47

SD/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶48

ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

M/S Ravi Security Bureau v. the Geological Survey of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ravi Security Bureau v. the Geological Survey of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. v. Shobha Rani Vs Sri Randeep D., I.A.S.

Sri M Bojanna Vs Dr Venkatesh M v

M/S Sreesha Educational Services LLP Vs Sandeep Singhvi

Sri Balasubramanya Vs M/S Mysore Minerals Private Ltd.

M/S. Valmark Developers Private Limited, Vs Sri. M Maheshwar Rao IAS

State of Karnataka Vs Smt. Muthulaxmi. B. N.