SMT SAVITHRAMMA vs M/S VEDHA SHELTERS
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53880-DB
COMAP No. 390 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010551882026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 390 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1. SMT SAVITHRAMMA
D/O LATE ANANTHAMMA AND LATE RAMAIAH,
W/O MANIK KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
2. ANAND.R S/O LATE ANANTHAMMA
AND LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.9,
RD
SHIVAPARAVATHI NILAYA, 3 CROSS,
KANSHIRAM NAGAR,
HESARGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU- 560 097.
3. NANJUNDAIAH
S/O LATE ANANTHAMMA AND LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
ND
R/AT. NO.2024, 2 FLOOR,
PRESTIGE GARDEN BAY, AVALAHALLI,
NEAR CRPF, DODDABALLAPUAR MAIN ROAD
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.9,
RD
SHIVAPARAVATHI NILAYA, 3 CROSS,
KANSHIRAM NAGAR, HESARGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 097.
ALTERNATIVELY AVAILABLE AT
Digitally
signed by
MALA K N
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53880-DB
COMAP No. 390 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010551882026
HMT LAYOUT, SRINIVASAPUR ROAD,
BAVIKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560 096.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ABHINAV.R., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ANIL KUMAR.R.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S VEDHA SHELTERS
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS PRESENT PLACE OF BUSINESS
ND
AT NO. K-41, VEDHAM 2 FLOOR,
KEB-HBCS LAYOUT,
KATRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD,
RD
BSK 3 STAGE, BENGALURU- 560 085,
DULY REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNER
SRI. NAGARAJ KUMAR H.P,
S/O LATE PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
2. SRI. SRIDHAR RAO M
S/O LATE G. SUBBA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 235(12),
TH
DIVYA SHREE, 7 MAIN,
NAGENDRA BLOCK,
RD
BSK 3 STAGE,
BENGALURU- 560 085.
3. H.M.T.EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING
CO OP SOCIETY LTD
ST
CSD BUILDING, 1 FLOOR, JALAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 013.
REP BY ITS PRESIDENT/SECRETARY
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.CHENNAKESHAVA.B.S .,ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 &R2
IN CP NO.15253/2026))
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53880-DB
COMAP No. 390 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010551882026
THIS COMAP FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1-A) OF
COMMERCIAL COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.06.2026
PASSED BY THE LXXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (EXCLUSIVELY) DEDICATED COMMERCIAL
COURT) AT BENGALURU (CCH-88) IN COM.AP NO.123/2024
AND ALLOW THE I.A. NO.III AND RETURN THE PETITION TO BE
PRESENTED BEFORE THE JURISDICTION RURAL COURT AT
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
This Commercial Appeal is filed impugning the order
dated 20.06.2026 passed by the LXXXVII Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge, (Exclusively Dedicated Commercial Court),
Bengaluru (CCH-88) ( ‘Commercial Court’ ), in
Com.A.P.No.123/2024, whereby the application filed by the
appellants under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of
CPC came to be allowed on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53880-DB
COMAP No. 390 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010551882026
I. Brief Facts of the Case:
2. Late Smt.Ananthamma, the mother of the
appellants, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated
25.01.2016 with the respondents for formation of a residential
layout and sale of residential sites. The disputes arising out of
the said arrangement were referred to arbitration, and the
respondents instituted proceedings in A.C. No. 163/2022 before
the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru. The
appellants filed their statement of objections and raised a
counterclaim. By the arbitral award dated 21.05.2024, the
claim of the respondents was partly allowed, while the
counterclaim of the appellants was rejected. Aggrieved by the
award, the appellants instituted proceedings under Section 34
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( 'the Act') , in
COM.A.P. No.123/2024 before the Commercial Court on
19.08.2024. During the pendency of those proceedings, on
11.12.2025, they filed I.A. No. III under Order VII Rule 10 read
with Section 151 CPC, seeking return of the petition for
presentation before the competent regular civil court,
contending that the underlying transaction concerned the
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53880-DB
COMAP No. 390 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010551882026
formation of residential sites and did not constitute a
commercial dispute within Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
II. Appellants' contentions in I.A.No.III filed under Order
VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC:
3. The appellants contended that the challenge under
Section 34 of the Act arose out of the MoU dated 25.01.2016
and the agreement of sale dated 13.02.2014, concerning
properties bearing Sy. Nos. 34 and 36 of Bavikere Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District.
According to the appellants, the arrangement was for formation
of a residential layout and sale of residential sites, and the
properties were not shown to have been used exclusively for
trade or commerce. They therefore questioned the jurisdiction
of the Commercial Court under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The appellants also relied upon
the location of the schedule properties and the execution
proceedings initiated before the Commercial Court in Bengaluru
Rural District, and sought return of the petition for presentation
before the competent court having jurisdiction.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53880-DB
COMAP No. 390 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010551882026
III. Statement of objections filed by Respondents Nos. 1
and 2:
4. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 opposed the application
contending that it was misconceived, not maintainable and
liable to be rejected with exemplary costs. They specifically
urged that Order VII Rule 10 CPC applies to plaints in civil suits
and cannot be invoked for returning a petition filed under
Section 34 of the Act. It was their further case that the MOU
dated 25.01.2016 created enforceable commercial obligations
between the parties and that the appellants could not avoid the
jurisdiction of the Commercial Court merely because the
agreement did not expressly describe the transaction as
commercial. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court
in W.P.No.28536/2024 dated 28.10.2024 (R.J.Dayananda -vs-
Smt.Narasamma & Others), referring to Ambalal Sarabhai
1
Enterprise Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP Ltd. & Another .
The respondents also contended that the application was filed
to delay the proceedings, particularly when the challenge to the
arbitral award had been pending since 2024. On these grounds,
they sought dismissal of I.A. No. III with exemplary costs.
1
(2020) 15 SCC 585
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53880-DB
COMAP No. 390 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010551882026
IV. Order on I.A. No. III dated 20.06.2026:
5. The Commercial Court considered the application,
the objections, the written submissions and the material placed
on record. The Court rejected the respondents’ objection that
Order VII Rule 10 CPC could not be invoked in proceedings
under Section 34 of the Act, observing that challenges to
arbitral awards had earlier been entertained before the regular
civil courts. On examining the schedule properties and the
connected records, including the proceedings in
O.S.No.110/2020 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Nelamangala, the Court found that the properties were situated
in Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, outside its
territorial jurisdiction. It also noticed that the arbitration clause
in Clause 18 of the MoU dated 25.01.2016 referred to
Bengaluru as the place of arbitration but did not specifically
identify the seat of arbitration. The Court accordingly held that
the petition was liable to be returned for want of territorial
jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.
6. The Court further noticed that the application had
been filed in December 2025, though COM.A.P. No. 123/2024
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53880-DB
COMAP No. 390 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010551882026
had been instituted on 19.08.2024, and that the memo seeking
return of the petition was filed on 21.04.2026. Taking note of
the delay and the time already spent in the proceedings, the
Court allowed I.A. No. III subject to payment of costs of
Rs.5,000/- within seven days. However, instead of directing
presentation before the regular civil court, the operative order
directed the appellants to represent the petition before the
jurisdictional Commercial Court in Bengaluru Rural District
within fifteen days. The Court also recorded that no application
under Order VII Rule 10-A(2) CPC had been filed for specifying
the name of the court and the date of appearance. The
appellants have challenged this direction in the present appeal,
contending that their primary objection was not confined to
territorial jurisdiction but also concerned the very
maintainability of the proceedings before a Commercial Court.
V. Grounds of appeal:
7. The learned Commercial Court, having allowed
I.A.No.III on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction, erred
in directing the appellants to present the petition before the
Commercial Court in Bengaluru Rural District without first
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53880-DB
COMAP No. 390 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010551882026
deciding whether the dispute arising out of the MoU dated
25.01.2016 and the agreement of sale dated 13.02.2014
constituted a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section
2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The subject
properties, bearing Sy. Nos. 34 and 36 of Bavikere Village,
Nelamangala Taluk, were the subject matter of an arrangement
for formation of a residential layout, and the appellants
specifically contended that the properties were not being used
exclusively for trade or commerce. Though the Court accepted
the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction and ordered
return of the petition, it failed to adjudicate the distinct
objection relating to subject-matter jurisdiction and, without
recording a finding on the applicability of the Commercial
Courts Act, directed presentation before another Commercial
Court. The said direction, therefore, is assailed as contrary to
the appellants’ specific case and liable to be set aside, with a
direction to return the petition for presentation before the
competent regular civil court in accordance with law.
8. We have heard Sri.Abhinav.R., learned counsel
appearing for the appellants and Sri.Chennakeshava B.S.,
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53880-DB
COMAP No. 390 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010551882026
learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Upon
consideration of the pleadings, the records placed before this
Court and the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant
the following point arises for our consideration:
Whether the appellants have made out any ground to
allow the appeal and consequently set aside the
order dated 20.06.2026 passed by the learned
LXXXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Commercial Court, Bangalore, (CCH-88) in Com.
A.P.No.123/2024?
VI. REASONS & CONCLUSION:
9. The contention of the appellants that the learned
Commercial Court ought to have returned the petition for
presentation before the regular civil court cannot be accepted
in the facts and circumstances of the case. The proceedings in
COM.A.P. No. 123/2024 arose out of the arbitral award dated
21.05.2024 passed in A.C. No. 163/2022, pursuant to the MoU
dated 25.01.2016 and the agreement of sale dated 13.02.2014.
The learned Commercial Court, on examining the schedule
properties, the appended records and the proceedings in O.S.
No. 110/2020 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Nelamangala, found that the properties bearing Sy. Nos. 34
and 36 of Bavikere Village, Nelamangala Taluk, fall within
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53880-DB
COMAP No. 390 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010551882026
Bengaluru Rural District and outside its territorial jurisdiction.
The Court also considered Clause 18 of the MoU and found no
specific stipulation identifying the seat of arbitration, though
Bengaluru was mentioned as the place where the arbitration
proceedings were to be held. Having regard to these
circumstances, the Court rightly held that the petition was
liable to be returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. The
appellants cannot disregard the territorial jurisdiction
determined on the basis of the schedule properties and the
material available on record merely because they seek
presentation before a regular civil court.
10. It is also relevant that the appellants instituted
COM.A.P. No. 123/2024 on 19.08.2024 but filed I.A. No. III
under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC only on
11.12.2025, followed by the memo dated 21.04.2026. The
learned Commercial Court took note of this delay and imposed
costs of Rs.5,000/- while allowing the application, directing the
appellants to re-present the petition before the jurisdictional
Commercial Court in Bengaluru Rural District within fifteen
days. The direction was issued in the context of the territorial
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53880-DB
COMAP No. 390 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010551882026
jurisdiction found by the Court and the appellants’ own request
to have the matter placed before the court having jurisdiction
over the schedule properties. The order does not warrant
interference merely on the ground that the appellants seek a
different forum, particularly when the petition was returned for
want of territorial jurisdiction and the direction was confined to
its presentation before the competent court in the rural district.
Accordingly, this Commercial Appeal is dismissed .
The order on I.A.No.3 dated 20.06.2026 passed by the
LXXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (Exclusively
Dedicated Commercial Court), Bengaluru (CCH-88) in
Com.A.P.No.123/2024 is hereby affirmed.
Pending I.A. stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
JUDGE
KNM
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1