[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
M/S Navyasri Minerals vs H.S. Abdul Hafeez Sayeed on 9 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB
COMAP No.63/2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.63/2023
BETWEEN:
M/S. NAVYASRI MINERALS
C-2, CASA LAVELLE-4, 12/1
LAVELLE ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
SRI. SRIDHARA BABU.
Digitally signed by ...APPELLANT
ARSHIFA BAHAR (BY SRI. SHIVA KUMAR K.B. ADV.,)
KHANAM
HIGH COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. H.S. ABDUL HAFEEZ SAYEED
S/O LATE H.S. SHEIK HABEEB
PROPRIETOR M/S ORIENTAL GRANITES
NO.21, ROHINI COMPLEX
HASSAN-573201.
2. SRIDHAR BABU
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
S/O LATE P.S. RAJU
M/S. NAVYASRI MINERALS
C-2, CASA LAVELLA-4, 12/1
LAVELLE ROAD
BANGALORE-560001.
3. SMT. MEERA SRIDHARA BABU
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
W/O SRIDHARABABU
R/O NO.C-2, CASA LAVELLA-4
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB
COMAP No.63/2023
HC-KAR
12/1, LAVELLE ROAD
BANGALORE-560001.
4. YASHAS SRIDHARA BABU
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
S/O SRIDHARABABU
R/O NO.C-2
CASA LAVELLE-4, 12/1
LAVELLE ROAD
BANGALORE-560001.
5. BALAKRISHNA H.G.
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
S/O LATE GOPALA SETTY
R/O NO.11, IST MAIN ROAD
VYALIKAVAL, BANGALORE-560003.
6. T.N. DEVARAJ
PARTNER
M/S. NAVYASRI MINERALS
NO.18, SALGAME VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN-573219.
7. T.D. ARJUN
PARTNER
M/S. NAVYASRI MINERALS
PWD COLONY, R C ROAD
NEAR NCC OFFICE
HASSAN-573201.
8. THE DIRECTOR
MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT
KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ADITYA VIKRAM BHAT, AGA FOR R8
SRI. DR. S. NAGARAJ, ADV., FOR R1
SMT. VIDYASHREE K.S. ADV., FOR R3, R4, R6 & R7
R2 & R5 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS D/W V.C.O. DTD:10.04.2023)
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB
COMAP No.63/2023
HC-KAR
THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(A) OF THE
COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 R/W SECTION 96 AND
ORDER 41, RULE 1 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS IN COMMERCIAL O.S NO.251/2020 PENDING
BEFORE THE HONBLE LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-86) (COMMERCIAL COURT). SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.10.2022 PASSED ON I.A NO. III
FILED IN COMMERCIAL O.S NO.251/2020 BY THE HONBLE
LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU
(CCH-86) (COMMERCIAL COURT) PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-N
AND DISMISS I.A. NO.III, FILED UNDER CHANGED
CIRCUMSTANCES, UNDER 39, RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC, READ
WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-N,
WITH EXEMPLARY COSTS & ETC.
THIS COMAP HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
04.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB
COMAP No.63/2023
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This appeal is filed under Section 13(1)(A) of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act') read with Section 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC'),
challenging the order dated 01.10.2022 passed on
I.A.No.III filed by the respondent under Order XXXIX Rule
1 and 2 of the CPC in Com.O.S.No.251/2020, by the
LXXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
(CCH-86)(Commercial Court)(hereinafter referred to as
the 'Commercial Court').
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are
that the respondent No.1 filed a commercial suit in
Com.O.S.No.251/2020 for judgment and decree seeking a
direction to the appellant and other respondents to re-
constitute a partnership deed by inducting the respondent
No.1 as a partner in the defendant No.1-partnership firm
and other reliefs. The respondent No.1 also filed an
NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB
HC-KAR
application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC for
temporary injunction against the defendants and their
agents restraining them from carrying out the quarry
operations in the suit schedule property. The appellant
filed a written statement denying the assertions made in
the plaint. The Commercial Court, under the impugned
order allowed I.A.No.III filed by the respondent No.1 by
granting temporary injunction against the defendant
Nos.1, 2, 6 and 7, their agents by restraining them from
carrying out the quarry operations in respect of the
application schedule land. Being aggrieved, the defendant
No.1 in the suit filed this appeal. This Court, after hearing
both the sides, vide order dated 20.04.2023 stayed the
impugned order.
3. Sri.K.B.Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant submits that the Commercial Court has
committed a grave error in recording the finding that the
plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of
temporary injunction without appreciating the fact that the
NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB
HC-KAR
plaintiff has failed to establish any right in the suit. It is
submitted that the plaintiff's prayer to induct him as a
partner in the appellant-firm cannot be considered in the
absence of consent of the existing partners. Hence, such
a relief is not maintainable and consequently, the suit is
liable to be rejected. It is further submitted that the
plaintiff claims that he has transferred Rs.15,00,000/- in
favour of M/s.Sheega Exports, which does not possess a
quarry lease and the quarry lease is transferred in the
name of the appellant by the respondent No.5 and in view
of non-joinder of M/s.Sheega Exports as a party to the
proceedings, the suit is liable to be rejected and no cause
of action lies against the appellant to file the suit. It is
also submitted that the respondent No.1 has received the
refund amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from M/s.Sheega
Exports which is not in dispute and there is no contractual
obligation between the parties in view of the receipt of the
amount without any protest. It is contended that the
Commercial Court, without considering any of the aspects
NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB
HC-KAR
recorded an erroneous finding and granted temporary
injunction which was stayed by this Court. Hence, he
seeks to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned
order.
4. Per contra, Dr.S.Nagaraj, learned counsel for
the respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the
Commercial Court and submits that the Commercial Court
clearly recorded the finding that the defendants agreed to
transfer the quarry lease in favour of the plaintiff and they
have received Rs.15,00,000/- as advance and the plaintiff
is ready and willing to pay the balance amount. It is
submitted that the Commercial Court has clearly come to
the conclusion that the amount is paid by the plaintiff in
part performance of the agreement which has been
acknowledged by the defendant No.1 in the e-mail, draft
agreement was sent and thereafter, no steps have been
taken to execute the agreement and come to the
conclusion that a prima facie case is made out by the
plaintiff and no hardship would be caused to the defendant
NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB
HC-KAR
if injunction order is granted. It is further submitted that
the contentions raised by the plaintiff in the plaint and the
documents produced indicate that the issue raised in the
plaint are triable and granted injunction which does not
call for any interference. It is also submitted that if the
appellant is allowed to continue the quarry activity, it
would cause great prejudice and hardship to the plaintiff.
It is contended that in view of the interim order granted by
this Court, the appellant is doing illegal quarrying activity
and in the process, the workers have died and an FIR is
also registered against the appellant. It is further
contended that receipt of the amount by the appellant-firm
and the communication of the draft agreement amounts to
implied contract between the parties, which he seeks to
enforce in the suit. In support of his contentions, he relied
on the following decisions:
(a) L.SIVALINGAIAH Vs. PANCHAJANYA VIDYA
PEETHA WELFARE TRUST AND ORS1
(b) H.T.VEERA REDDI Vs. KISTAMMA2
2007 (5) Kar LJ 625
MANU/TN/0664/1972
NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB
HC-KAR
(c) N.MOHAMMAD Vs. THE MANDAL
PANCHAYAT, KALGHATGI3
Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the
respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material
available on record. We have given our anxious
consideration to the submissions made on both the sides.
6. The material on record indicates that the
respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific performance in
Com.O.S.No.251/2020 seeking reconstitution of the
partnership deed by inducting the respondent No.1 as a
partner in the appellant-firm and other reliefs. The
respondent No.1 also filed an application under Order
XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC for temporary injunction
against the defendants and their agents restraining them
from carrying out the quarry operations in the suit
schedule property. The appellant filed a written statement
MANU/KA/0364/1998
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB
HC-KAR
denying the assertions made in the plaint. The
Commercial Court, under the impugned order allowed
I.A.No.III filed by the respondent No.1 by granting
temporary injunction against the defendant Nos.1, 2, 6
and 7, their agents by restraining them from carrying out
the quarry operations in respect of the application
schedule land. Being aggrieved, the defendant No.1 in the
suit filed this appeal. This Court, after hearing both the
sides, vide order dated 20.04.2023 stayed the impugned
order.
7. The plaint averments indicate that the
respondent No.1 paid a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as an
advance to the appellant-firm with an intention to enter
into an agreement for the transfer of lease license in
favour of the respondent No.1 for a total consideration of
Rs.2.10 Crores. The said assertion of the plaintiff has
been categorically denied by the defendant No.1-appellant
in the written statement. It is specifically averred that the
alleged transfer of Rs.15,00,000/- stated in the plaint was
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB
HC-KAR
made to M/s.Sheega Exports. The bank statement
produced by the appellant at Annexure-E also indicates
that the amount was transferred to M/s.Sheega Exports
and the said M/s.Sheega Exports is not a party to the suit.
The document at Annexure-H1 produced by the appellant
clearly indicates that the said firm has re-transferred the
amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the plaintiff's account, which
he has received and acknowledged without protest. There
is no material on record to indicate that the plaintiff has
communicated to the appellant or M/s. Sheega Exports
with regard to his intention to transfer the amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- and the balance amount, as claimed to
have been agreed by the parties. In absence of any such
assertion, we are of the view that the plaintiff has failed to
establish a prima facie right to seek for enforcement of an
alleged implied contract.
8. The plaint averments makes it clear that though
there might have been a potential interest in an
agreement for transfer of lease, there was no written
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB
HC-KAR
contract or agreement to the said affect that bounded the
appellant-firm. In view of the above fact, we are of the
considered view that in the absence of a written
agreement and proper material to prove an implied
contract, the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie
case warranting an order of temporary injunction against
the appellant-firm, who is lawfully carrying out his activity
as per the license issued by the competent authority. We
are also of the view that the balance of convenience lies in
favour of the appellant-firm as restraining them from
carrying on the business activities will cause a huge
financial loss to the appellant and also that non-granting of
the temporary injunction will not cause irreparable loss or
injury to the respondent No.1 as the loss may be
compensated by monetary compensation in case the
plaintiff succeeds in the suit. The contention of the
respondent No.1 that there was a violation of an implied
contract by the appellant-firm can be adjudicated by the
Commercial Court in accordance with law. It is also
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB
HC-KAR
noticed that the alleged transfer of money is to a different
firm and the said firm is not a party to the suit and in the
absence of any receipt of advance amount by the
appellant-firm under the alleged implied contract, there
cannot be any restrainment order against the appellant.
The Commercial Court erroneously came to a conclusion
that the plaintiff has paid Rs.15,00,000/- to the
defendant-firm for the transfer of quarrying license as an
advance consideration out of the total consideration of
Rs.2.10 Crores and placing reliance on such a document
and e-mails, has proceeded to hold that a prima facie case
is made out. We have already recorded the finding supra
with regard to the pleading and document relied on by the
plaintiff with regard to the payment and the alleged
implied contract by holding prima facie that the alleged
transaction between the parties is only an intention to
enter into a contract for the transfer of quarry license.
However, the said intent does not appear to have
culminated into an enforceable contract.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB
HC-KAR
9. Insofar as the judgments relied on by the
learned counsel for respondent No.1 is concerned, it lays
down the settled principles of law governing the temporary
injunction, which is not disputed. However, the said
judgments will not come to his aid while applying the
principles to the facts of this case, wherein the prima facie
case is not established by the respondent No.1.
10. It is made clear that the finding recorded by
this Court is limited to the extent of adjudication of an
application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1
and 2 of the CPC and the Commercial Court shall not be
influenced by the finding recorded by this Court. The
Commercial Court shall dispose of the suit on its merits
and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
11. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is
allowed.
Consequently, the order dated 01.10.2022 passed on
I.A.No.III filed by the respondent under Order XXXIX Rule
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB
HC-KAR
1 and 2 of the CPC in Com.O.S.No.251/2020, by the
LXXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
(CCH-86)(Commercial Court), is set aside.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1
