[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
M/S Vishwas Properties Developers vs Sri.M.Gangadhar Rao on 13 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:8898-DB
MFA No. 854 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 854 OF 2026 (AA)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S VISHWAS PROPERTIES DEVELOPERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
HAVING OFFICE AT
LOMBARD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,
MISSION COMPOUND, UDUPI-576 101,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER
SRI G. SANJEEVA SHETTY,
S/O. SRI NARAYAN SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DURGA PRASAD,
SANTHEKATTE, KALLIANPUR,
UDUPI 576 101.
2. SRI G. SANJEEVA SHETTY,
Digitally signed S/O. SRI NARAYAN SHETTY,
by NIRMALA
DEVI AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DURGA PRASAD,
Location: HIGH
SANTHEKATTE, KALLIANPUR,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA UDUPI 576 101.
3. SRI STEPHEN VIJAYAKUMAR KARKADA,
S/O. SRI SHADRAK KARKADA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VALENTINE',
M.M. TEMPLE ROAD, 76,
BADAGABETTU, BAILUR,
UDUPI 576 107.
4. SMT. JAYAPRADA S. SHETTY,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:8898-DB
MFA No. 854 of 2026
HC-KAR
W/O. SRIKANTH SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT K. VITTALA
SHETTY COMPOUND,
GOPPALAPURA, I CROSS,
SANTHEKATTE, KALLIANAPURA,
UDUPI -576 105.
5. SMT. VASANTHI PUSHPALATHA AMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
W/O. LATE AARON PRAVEEN AMANNA,
RESIDING AT 'ROSEFELIX', 5-904,
8TH CROSS, NEAR M.M. SCHOOL,
76, BADAGABETTU, BAILUR,
UDUPI - 576 101.
6. SRI ASHLEY NIHAL AMANNA,
S/O. LATE AARON PRAVEEN AMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 'ROSEFELIX', 5-90A,
8TH CROSS, NEAR M.M. SCHOOL,
76, BADAGABETTU, BAILUR,
UDUPI 576 101.
REPRESENTED BY THEIR G.P.A. HOLDER
SMT. VASANTHI PUSHPALATHA AMANNA
7. SMT. AARON NEETHA AMANNA
D/O. LATE AARON PRAVEEN AMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT ROSEFELIX', 5-90A,
8TH CROSS, NEAR M.M. SCHOOL,
76, BADAGABETTU, BAILUR,
UDUPI 576 101.
REPRESENTED BY THEIR G.P.A. HOLDER
SMT. VASANTHI PUSHPALATHA AMANNA
...APPELLANTS
(BY MS. SUSHMITHA SURESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.M.GANGADHAR RAO
S/O. M. MURALIDHAR RAO,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:8898-DB
MFA No. 854 of 2026
HC-KAR
RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 102,
VISHWAS RESIDENCY,
NEAR AJJARKAD,
UDUPI 576 101.
2. SMT. POORNIMA A. NAYAK,
W/O. SRI ARAVIND R. NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GOPALAPURA,
1ST MAIN, KALLIANAPUR, P.O.
SANTHEKATTE, UDUPI - 576 105.
3. SRI MOOSAKUNHI NAYARMOOLE,
HON'BLE SOLE ARBITRATOR,
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE RETD.,
NAYARMOOLE POST, VITTAL,
BANTWAL TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT - 574 243.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.37(1)(c) OF THE ARBITRATION AND
CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 01.08.2025
PASSED IN A.P.NO. 384/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K. MANGALURU, DISMISSING
THE PETITION FILED U/S.34(3) OF THE ARBITRATION AND
CONCILIATION ACT R/W SEC.5 OF LIMITATION ACT.
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 appellants have filed the present appeal under Section
37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act]
NC: 2026:KHC:8898-DB
HC-KAR
impugning common order dated 01.08.2025 [impugned order]
passed by the I Additional District and Session Judge at
Mangaluru, [the Commercial Court] in A.P.No.384/2023 and
A.P.No.374/2023. The appellants had preferred the said
application seeking the setting aside of an arbitral award dated
11.07.2023 [impugned award]. The learned Commercial Court
found that the said application had been filed on 21.12.2023, which
was beyond the period of three months and thirty days from the
date of receipt of the impugned arbitral award. In view of the above,
the Commercial Court rejected the said application on the ground
of delay.
2. In terms of Section 34(3) of the A&C Act, an application to
set aside the arbitral award is required to be made within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of an award. In terms of
the proviso to Section 34(3), the Court can condone the delay in
filling the said application, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient
cause, which prevented the applicant from filing the application
within the stipulated period. However, the said delay can be
condoned upto a maximum of thirty days. The Court does not have
the jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the said period.
NC: 2026:KHC:8898-DB
HC-KAR
3. It is the appellant's case that the respondents invited the
appellants to negotiate to settle the disputes while concealing that
they had filed an application to set aside the arbitral award before
the learned Commercial Court at Udupi. It is stated that their
application had been returned by the learned Commercial Court in
Udupi and thereafter, they had presented the same before the
learned Commercial Court at Mangaluru. It is contented that in the
meanwhile, the appellants were deceived into believing that the
respondents were interested in amicably resolving the dispute.
Therefore, the appellants did not take steps to challenge the
arbitral award within the prescribed period.
4. It is not necessary for this Court to examine the reasons for
which the appellant had not filed the application within the
prescribed period. Even if the Court is convinced that the delay in
filing the application is bonafide one, the Court cannot condone the
delay beyond the period of thirty days. The Supreme Court in the
case of Union of India Vs. Popular Construction Company1 and
several other decisions have authoritatively held that the Court
(2001) 8 SCC 470
NC: 2026:KHC:8898-DB
HC-KAR
does not have the power to condone the delay in filing an
application under Section 34 of the A&C Act beyond a period of
thirty days.
5. Learned counsel also pointed out that the impugned order is
a common order passed in AP No.384 of 2023 as well as AP
No.374 of 2023. She submits that AP No.374 of 2023, which was
filed by the respondents, was also rejected on the ground of delay.
However, this Court has, in terms of an order dated 22.01.2026,
allowed the appeal (MFA No.7014 of 2025) against the common
order insofar as it relates to AP No.374 of 2023. She contends that
the said application was restored before the Commercial Court for
a fresh decision, as this court condoned a delay of fifteen days
(incorrectly stated as 14 days in the said order). By virtue of the
said order, she submits that the present appeal must meet the
same fate.
6. There is no merit in the aforesaid contention. Although the
impugned order is a common order, the learned Commercial Court
has dealt with each of the two applications - AP No. 384 of 2023
and A.P. 374 of 2023 separately. While both the applications have
been rejected on the ground of delay, the delay in the case of the
NC: 2026:KHC:8898-DB
HC-KAR
application filed by the respondent (AP No.374 of 2023) was fifteen
days. The said application was filed three months and fifteen days
after the date of receipt of the impugned award. The application
filed by the appellant (AP No.384 of 2023) was filed after a period
of five months and ten days from the date of receipt of the award.
Thus, the delay in the respondents' application could not be
condoned. But the Court had no jurisdiction to condone the delay in
filing AP No.384 of 2023.
7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
8. IA 1/2026 is disposed of.
SD/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
SD/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
Vmb
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17
