Karnataka High Court
M/S Mafatlal Industries Ltd vs Sri. Prasad Dugar on 25 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:42334-DB
COMAP No. 471 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 471 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
M/S MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD
A COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED PERSON/
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
SRI. DILIP ACHARYA,
O/AT 6TH FLOOR, OFFICE NO 03,
HDIL KALEDONIA BUILDING,
SAHAR ROAD, ANDHERI EAST,
MUMBAI - 400069.
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING THEIR REGD. OFFICE
Digitally AT 301/302 HERITAGE, HORIZON
signed by
NIRMALA 3RD FLOOR, OFF. G.C. ROAD,
DEVI NAVARANGPURA, AHMEDABAD - 380009
Location: CORPORATE OFFICE AT
HIGH MAFATLALA HOUSE, 5TH FLOOR,
COURT OF H.T. PAREKH MARG, BACKBAY,
KARNATAKA
RECLAMATION, CHRUCHGATE,
MUMABAI - 20.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. V SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H M MADHUSUDHANA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. PRASAD DUGAR
S/O SOHANLAL DUGAR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:42334-DB
COMAP No. 471 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
PROPRIETOR OF
M/S KEYTONE APPEARLS
ADD: 141-2-1 3RD CROSS,
PIPELINE WEST, BENGALURU - 02
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
AND GPA HOLDER, AMITJAIN
S/O BHAWARLAL JAIN
...RESPONDENT
THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SEC. 13(1-A) OF
COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER ON PETITION PASSED BY THE LXXXVIII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH 89) AT BENGALURU
IN COM.MISC. PETITION NO. 35/2021 DATED 08.08.2022
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A AND ALLOW THE PETITION
FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS
THE THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section
13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, inter alia impugning
the order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the LXXXVIII Addl.City Civil
& Sessions Judge (Exclusive Commercial Court) Bengaluru City,
(CCH-89) (hereinafter referred to as 'Commercial Court') in
NC: 2025:KHC:42334-DB
HC-KAR
Com.Misc. Petition No.35/2021 [impugned order] whereby the
appellant's application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 was rejected. The appellant had filed the said
application praying that the order dated 09.08.2021 passed in
Com.O.S. No.236/2021 be set aside and the said suit be restored.
2. It is the appellant's case that it was completely unaware of
the pendency of the said suit and was not served with any
summons. The learned counsel contended that Commercial Court
has erroneously proceeded on the basis that the summons had
been served and despite service, the appellant was not
represented.
3. The learned Commercial Court had examined the rival
contentions and had rejected the contention that the summons of
the suit issued had not been served on the appellant.
4. The appellant has filed the present appeal after an inordinate
delay of 782 days. The appellant has filed an application seeking
condonation of delay. The appellant claims that the Advocate who
was practicing in Mumbai was appointed to file an appeal against
the impugned order. However, he could not act within time, due to
NC: 2025:KHC:42334-DB
HC-KAR
his father's illness, leading to a delay of about eight months. The
appellant also claims that its officials recognised the delay and
transferred the case to another law firm. The said firm retained the
brief for ten months and returned it without explanation, hence,
causing further delay. Subsequently, the company engaged a local
firm in Bengaluru. However, "communication barriers and logistical
challenges between the company's representatives and the firm
created additional delay".
5. We are unable to accept the said explanation. The appellant
is a Public Company and as is averred in the present appeal is
involved in several litigations. It is the appellant's case that its
officials had discovered the ex-parte decree on conducting search
online of various litigations pending against the appellant-company.
Thus, it cannot be accepted that the appellant was not aware that
the appeal had not been filed. Yet it waited for eight months before
deciding to engage another law firm.
6. As noted above, the appellant states the law firm had
returned the brief after ten months without any explanation as to
the delay. This also indicates that appellant itself does not know
why the appeal was not filed for ten months. The delay beyond the
NC: 2025:KHC:42334-DB
HC-KAR
period of ten months is also unexplained. It is stated that the said
delay is attributed to "communication barriers and logistical
challenges". Learned counsel is also unable to explain as to what
language barriers prevented the appellant from filing the appeal
and what were logistical challenges it had faced. It is apparent that
the appellant had adopted a casual and indifferent approach that
cannot be countenanced.
7. It is also relevant to note the following observations made by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of
Maharashtra v. M/s. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors
Pvt. Ltd. : (2021) 6 SCC 460:
"53. However, the matter does not end here. The
question still arises as to the application of Section 5 of the
Limitation Act to appeals which are governed by a uniform 60-
day period of limitation. At one extreme, we have the
judgment in N.V. International [N.V. International v. State of
Assam, (2020) 2 SCC 109 : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 275] which
does not allow condonation of delay beyond 30 days, and at
the other extreme, we have an open-ended provision in which
any amount of delay can be condoned, provided sufficient
cause is shown. It is between these two extremes that we
have to steer a middle course.
54. One judicial tool with which to steer this course is
contained in the Latin maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat.
This maxim was fleshed out in CIT v. Hindustan Bulk
NC: 2025:KHC:42334-DB
HC-KAR
Carriers [CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, (2003) 3 SCC 57] as
follows : [ Followed in the separate opinion delivered by
Pasayat, J. in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, (2008)
6 SCC 1 : 3 SCEC 35 (see paras 333-34).] (SCC pp. 73-74,
paras 14-21)
"14. A construction which reduces the statute to a
futility has to be avoided. A statute or any enacting provision
therein must be so construed as to make it effective and
operative on the principle expressed in the maxim ut res magis
valeat quam pereat i.e. a liberal construction should be put
upon written instruments, so as to uphold them, if possible,
and carry into effect the intention of the parties. [See Broom's
Legal Maxims (10th Edn.), p. 361, Craies on Statutes (7th
Edn.), p. 95 and Maxwell on Statutes (11th Edn.), p. 221.]
15. A statute is designed to be workable and the
interpretation thereof by a court should be to secure that
object unless crucial omission or clear direction makes that
end unattainable. (See Whitney v. IRC[Whitney v. IRC, 1926
AC 37 (HL)] , AC at p. 52 referred to in CIT v. S. Teja
Singh [CIT v. S. Teja Singh, AIR 1959 SC 352] and Gursahai
Saigal v. CIT [Gursahai Saigal v. CIT, AIR 1963 SC 1062] .)
16. The courts will have to reject that construction
which will defeat the plain intention of the legislature even
though there may be some inexactitude in the language used.
(See Salmon v. Duncombe[Salmon v. Duncombe, (1886) LR
11 AC 627 (PC)] , AC at p.
634, Curtis v. Stovin [Curtis v. Stovin, (1889) LR 22 QBD 513
(CA)] referred to in S. Teja Singh case [CIT v. S. Teja Singh,
AIR 1959 SC 352] .)
17. If the choice is between two interpretations, the
narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose
of the legislation, we should avoid a construction which would
NC: 2025:KHC:42334-DB
HC-KAR
reduce the legislation to futility, and should rather accept the
bolder construction, based on the view that Parliament would
legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective
result. (See Nokes v. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries
Ltd. [Nokes v. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd., 1940 AC
1014 (HL)] referred to in Pye v. Minister for Lands for
NSW [Pye v. Minister for Lands for NSW, (1954) 1 WLR 1410
(PC)] .) The principles indicated in the said cases were
reiterated by this Court in Mohan Kumar Singhania v. Union of
India [Mohan Kumar Singhania v. Union of India, 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 594 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 455] .
18. The statute must be read as a whole and one
provision of the Act should be construed with reference to
other provisions in the same Act so as to make a consistent
enactment of the whole statute.
19. The court must ascertain the intention of the
legislature by directing its attention not merely to the clauses
to be construed but to the entire statute; it must compare the
clause with other parts of the law and the setting in which the
clause to be interpreted occurs. (See R.S. Raghunath v. State
of Karnataka[R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 1
SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 286] .) Such a construction has the
merit of avoiding any inconsistency or repugnancy either
within a section or between two different sections or provisions
of the same statute. It is the duty of the court to avoid a head-
on clash between two sections of the same Act. (See Sultana
Begum v. Prem Chand Jain [Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand
Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 373] .)
20. Whenever it is possible to do so, it must be done to
construe the provisions which appear to conflict so that they
harmonise. It should not be lightly assumed that Parliament
had given with one hand what it took away with the other.
NC: 2025:KHC:42334-DB
HC-KAR
21. The provisions of one section of the statute cannot
be used to defeat those of another unless it is impossible to
effect reconciliation between them. Thus a construction that
reduces one of the provisions to a "useless lumber" or "dead
letter" is not a harmonised construction. To harmonise is not
to destroy."
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 the context of condoning delay in filing
appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.
** ** **
**
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....
** ** **
**
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
NC: 2025:KHC:42334-DB
HC-KAR
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 be lost by the first party's inaction,
negligence or laches."
8. In view of the above, we are unable to accept that the
inordinate delay of 782 days can be condoned in the matters
relating to commercial disputes. The application is accordingly
dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
