Karnataka High Court
M/S Karanja Industries Pvt Ltd vs M/S Raja And Co on 25 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:42337-DB
COMAP No. 565 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. 565 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. M/S KARANJA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.
H NO 8-10-51/1 2 FLOOR
AKKAMAHADEVI COLONY
BIDAR
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI. GOVIND MARATHE
S/O LATE KASHINATH MARATHE
R/O AT A1/1, SUJATA APARTMENTS
OPP. BUND GARDEN, PUNE.
REP. BY AMAR
Digitally S/O AVINASH YEROLKAR
signed by AGE: 65 YEARS
AMBIKA H B
OCC: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
Location: THE COMPANY
High Court
of Karnataka R/O BIDAR TQ, DIST. BIDAR
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JAIRAJ KASHAPPA BUKKA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S RAJA AND CO
FORMED UNDER INDIAN
PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:42337-DB
COMAP No. 565 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. M/S. RAJA RECYCLLING LLP
REGISTERED UNDER
LLP ACT, 2008
BOTH THE FIRMS ARE REPRESENTED
BY ITS PARTNER
SRI. SUMITH H. RAJA
S/O SRI. HARISH A. RAJA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
OFFICE NO.103/104-2
I MAIN, 4TH CROSS
SRINIVASA NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 050
...RESPONDENTS
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
13 (1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015, PRAYING
TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND THEREBY SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR IN COM.EX NO.4/2025 IN IA NO.6
UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 37 OF CPC DATED 18.10.2025 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A15.
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 impugning an
order dated 18.10.2025 passed by the learned Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Bidar [Commercial Court], whereby, the
NC: 2025:KHC:42337-DB
HC-KAR
Commercial Court had, inter alia, issued arrest notice. The said
order was passed pursuant to an application filed under Order XXI
Rule 37 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
[CPC] in I.A No.6 in Com.Ex.No.4/2025.
2. The present appeal is not maintainable as the impugned
order is not one of the orders as enumerated in Order XLIII Rule 1
of the CPC. Therefore, an appeal under Section 13 (1A) of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [hereafter 'the Act'] does not lie.
3. The said issue is covered by the decision of the Supreme
Court in Kandla Export Corpn. v. OCI Corpn.: (2018) 14 SCC
715. The Supreme Court had observed as under:
"13. Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act,
with which we are immediately concerned in these
appeals, is in two parts. The main provision is, as
has been correctly submitted by Shri Giri, a
provision which provides for appeals from
judgments, orders and decrees of the Commercial
Division of the High Court. To this main provision,
an exception is carved out by the proviso. The
primary purpose of a proviso is to qualify the
generality of the main part by providing an
exception, which has been set out with great
felicity in CIT v. Indo-Mercantile Bank Ltd.
[CIT v. Indo-Mercantile Bank Ltd., 1959 Supp (2)
SCR 256 : AIR 1959 SC 713] , thus: (SCR pp.
266-67 : AIR pp. 717-18, paras 9-10)
NC: 2025:KHC:42337-DB
HC-KAR
"9. ... The proper function of a proviso is
that it qualifies the generality of the main
enactment by providing an exception and
taking out as it were, from the main
enactment, a portion which, but for the
proviso would fall within the main
enactment. Ordinarily it is foreign to the
proper function of a proviso to read it as
providing something by way of an
addendum or dealing with a subject which is
foreign to the main enactment.
'8. ... it is a fundamental rule of
construction that a proviso must be
considered with relation to the principal
matter to which it stands as a proviso.'
Therefore, it is to be construed
harmoniously with the main enactment. (Per
Das, C.J. in Abdul Jabar Butt v. State of
J&K [Abdul Jabar Butt v. State of J&K, 1957
SCR 51 : AIR 1957 SC 281 : 1957 Cri LJ
404] , SCR p. 59 : AIR p. 284, para 8).
Bhagwati, J., in Ram Narain Sons
Ltd. v. CST [Ram Narain Sons Ltd. v. CST,
(1955) 2 SCR 483 : AIR 1955 SC 765] ,
said: (SCR p. 493 : AIR p. 769, para 10)
'10. It is a cardinal rule of interpretation
that a proviso to a particular provision of a
statute only embraces the field which is
covered by the main provision. It carves out
an exception to the main provision to which
it has been enacted as a proviso and to no
other.'
10. Lord Macmillan in Madras &
Southern Mahratta Railway Co.
Ltd. v. Bezwada Municipality [Madras &
Southern Mahratta Railway Co.
NC: 2025:KHC:42337-DB
HC-KAR
Ltd. v. Bezwada Municipality, 1944 SCC
OnLine PC 7 : (1943-44) 71 IA 113] laid
down the sphere of a proviso as follows: (IA
p. 122 : SCC OnLine PC)
'... The proper function of a proviso is to
except and deal with a case which would
otherwise fall within the general language of
the main enactment, and its effect is
confined to that case. Where, as in the
present case, the language of the main
enactment is clear and unambiguous, a
proviso can have no repercussion on the
interpretation of the main enactment, so as
to exclude, from it by implication what
clearly falls within its express terms.'
The territory of a proviso therefore is to
carve out an exception to the main
enactment and exclude something which
otherwise would have been within the
section. It has to operate in the same field
and if the language of the main enactment
is clear it cannot be used for the purpose of
interpreting the main enactment or to
exclude by implication what the enactment
clearly says unless the words of the proviso
are such that that is its necessary effect.
(Vide also Toronto Corpn. v. Attorney-
General of Canada [Toronto Corpn.
v. Attorney-General of Canada, 1946 AC
32 (PC)] , AC p. 37.)"
14. The proviso goes on to state that an appeal
shall lie from such orders passed by the
Commercial Division of the High Court that are
specifically enumerated under Order 43 of the
Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and Section
37 of the Arbitration Act. It will at once be noticed
NC: 2025:KHC:42337-DB
HC-KAR
that orders that are not specifically enumerated
under Order 43 CPC would, therefore, not be
appealable, and appeals that are mentioned in
Section 37 of the Arbitration Act alone are appeals
that can be made to the Commercial Appellate
Division of a High Court."
4. The scope of an appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Act has
to be read in conjunction with the proviso to the said Sub-section.
5. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
AHB
