Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23675-DB
COMAP No. 176 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 176 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
M/S CROCHET INDUSTRIES PVT LTD
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NH5,
NANDIGHOSH RESIDENCY,
1ST FLOOR,
FLAT NO. 4 BEACH ROAD,
GOPALPUR, GANJAM,
ODISHA 761002,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
MR KISHORE KUMAR REDDY.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S BANASHANKARI CHEMICALS PVT LTD
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 44,
12TH MAIN, 17TH CROSS,
6TH SECTOR,
BEHIND B D A COMPLEX,
HSR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU 560102.
2. MR SAJJAN RAJ SANKALA
RESIDING AT NO. 32, 11TH MAIN,
Digitally
signed by K P
SWETHA
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23675-DB
COMAP No. 176 of 2026
HC-KAR
BTM 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE 560076.
3. MR MANJUNATH G
RESIDING AT NO. 405,
5TH FLOOR, VANDANA
SAROVAR APARTMENT,
JAKKASANDRA,
BANGALORE 560036.
4. M/S LN BREWERIES PVT LTD
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 133/1
GROUND FLOOR, 10TH MAIN,
14TH CROSS, 6TH SECTOR,
HSR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU 560102.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKHAR AHMED B, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1A) OF THE
COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 R/W ORDER XLIII RULE
1(A) OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT
COMMERCIAL APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
26.03.2026 PASSED BY THE HONBEL LXXXIV ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT
UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-85) IN COM.OS.NO.454/2026,
ANNEXURE-A WHEREBY THE PLAINT HAS BEEN ORDERED
TO BE RETURNED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 10 OF THE CPC,
FOR PRESENTATION BEFORE THE JURISDICTIONAL COURT
AT CHAMARAJANAGARA.
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
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23675-DB
COMAP No. 176 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. None appears for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 despite service
of notice. We note that none had appeared for the respondents on
the previous hearing as well. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are stated
to hold the entire share holding of respondent No.4. In view of the
above, we do not consider it apposite to defer the proceeding
awaiting representations on their behalf.
2. The appellant has field the present appeal impugning an order
dated 26.03.2026 [impugned order] passed by the learned LXXXIV
Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-85)
[ Commercial Court ] in Com O.S. No.454/2026. In terms of the
impugned order, the learned Commercial Court has returned the
plaint under Order VII to 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
[ CPC ] for presentation before the jurisdiction Court of Chamaraja
Nagar District. The operative part of the order reads as under:
Under Order VII, Rule 10 of CPC, the
plaint shall be returned to plaintiff for it's
representation before jurisdiction Court of
Chamarajanagar district, where Annexure 2
asset of Memorandum of Agreement cum
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23675-DB
COMAP No. 176 of 2026
HC-KAR
Binding Agreement dated 09.04.2024 is
situated.
3. The learned Commercial Court had concluded that since the
subject matter of the suit was an immovable property situated
outside the jurisdiction of the court, the Court did not have the
jurisdiction to try the suit. A copy of the plaint is placed on record.
A plain reading of the plaint indicates that the appellant (plaintiff in
the suit) had sought a decree for specific performance of a
Memorandum of Agreement cum binding Agreement dated
09.04.2024 [the Agreement] .
4. It is the appellant's case that in terms of the Agreement, the
defendants (respondents in the present appeal) had agreed to sell
and the appellant had agreed to purchase 100% of the equity
shares of M/s. LN Breweries Pvt. ltd., (respondent No.4) for
`
consideration of 42,50,00,000/- (Rupees Forty two crores fifty
lakhs only). It is also stated that the Agreement was entered into in
Bengaluru and the registered office of respondent No.4 (arrayed as
defendant No.4 in the suit) is also situated in Bengaluru. Thus,
situs of the shares of defendant No.4 which is a subject matter of
the Agreement between the parties, is also in Bengaluru. Since the
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23675-DB
COMAP No. 176 of 2026
HC-KAR
suit is for a specific performance of an Agreement executed in
Bengaluru, it cannot be disputed that the part of the cause of action
has arisen in Bengaluru.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 also fairly
states that he does not contest that the Commercial Court has the
jurisdiction to try the suit.
6. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. The
present appeal is allowed.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
has not collected the plaint from the Commercial Court. The
parties are at liberty to approach the learned Commercial Court for
listing the matter and for any urgent relief, as may be advised.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
BS
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 32