Dismissed

Multiple Special Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Hdfc Bank

Karnataka HC26 Mar 2026COMAP/650/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed an appeal against a commercial court decree filed beyond the six-month statutory limitation period. The court found the explanation for an 108-day delay inadequate and unsustainable, holding that condoning such a delay would defeat the legislative intent for expeditious disposal of commercial disputes. Consequently, both the condonation application and the app

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay application dismissed; appeal dismissed; all pending applications disposed of.

Multiple Special Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Hdfc Bank — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:17241-DB COMAP No. 650 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH, 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. 650 OF 2025

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

MULTIPLE SPECIAL STEEL PVT LTD. SY.NO.30/11, RAMANATH COMPLEX, SHANTIPURA MAIN ROAD, HUSKUR POST, BENGALURU-560099, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR G.MANIKANTAN, S/O N.R. G. KRISHNAN

¶13

(BY SRI. S. ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

…APPELLANT

¶16

HDFC BANK HEAD OFFICE NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 REP BY RELATIONSHIP MANAGER

¶17

HDFC BANK ELECTRONIC CITY, BENGALURU,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:17241-DB COMAP No. 650 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

KARNATAKA

¶21

REP BY THE BRANCH MANAGER BENGALURU-560100

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

THIS COMAP IS FILED U/S. 13(1A) OF COMMERCIAL COURT ACT 2015, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.06.2025 PASSED BY THE LXXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT, AT BENGALURU (CCH 90), IN COM. OS NO. 1367/2023, DISMISSING THE SUIT OF THE APPELLANT / PLAINTIFF AND THEREBY DECREE THE SUIT AS PRAYED FOR BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

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

¶29

The appellant has filed the present appeal beyond the period

¶30

of stipulation for preferring the same. There is a delay of 108 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. The only explanation provided for the delay is that the Managing Director of the appellant company

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:17241-DB COMAP No. 650 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

had to attend to work pertaining to a stall in an international

¶34

exhibition. The relevant portion of the explanation is as under:-

¶35

"I got engaged in promoting my products and facilitating the receipt of bulk orders which took few months. Soon after completing the said work, I approached my counsel again and got the above appeal filed."

¶36

As apparent from the above, that the application seeking condonation is delay is bereft of any details. There is no mention as to when the international exhibition was held and the exact period during which the Managing Director of the appellant company is stated to have been involved in the same.

¶37

Notwithstanding the above, we are unable to accept that an inordinate delay of 108 days can be condoned. The amendment introduced by virtue of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 restricts, the period within which an appeal can be preferred to sixty days. The objective of the same is to ensure that matters involving commercial disputes are disposed of expeditiously. Permitting an inordinate delay of 108 days, cases where no credible explanation

¶38

for the delay is provided, would be debilitating the legislative intent, if the same is condoned.

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:17241-DB COMAP No. 650 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

In view of the above, we find no grounds to condone the delay. Application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

¶42

All pending applications are also disposed of.

¶43

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶44

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶45

Vmb List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11

Multiple Special Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Multiple Special Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Hdfc Bank

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

Smt Veena H a Vs the State of Karnataka

Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. Vs Ferro Concrete Const (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Biplab Baksi Vs State of Karnataka

B.R.Anil Kumar Vs Smt.Rashmi Mahesh, IAS

Sri Manjunath D R Vs Sri Ravi Kumar

Mallikarjuna Rao Vs State of Karnataka