Hubli Electricity Supply Company vs Spml Infra Limited

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 27, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

M/S. Hubli Electricity Supply Company ... vs M/S. Spml Infra Limited on 25 February, 2026

-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:11887-DB
COMAP No.355/2022

            HC-KAR

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                  DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
                                    PRESENT
                     THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
                                      AND
               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                        COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.355/2022
           BETWEEN:

             M/S. HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
             COMPANY LIMITED
             A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING
             HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT

Digitally signed NAVANAGARA, P.B. ROAD
by ARSHIFA HUBLI-580 025
BAHAR KHANAM REP. BY ITS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
Location: HIGH PROJECT MONITORING CELL (SEPMC).
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.SRIRANGA, SR. ADV., FOR
SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADV.,)

           AND:

           M/S. SPML INFRA LIMITED
           (FORMERLY SUBHASH PROJECTS
           AND MARKETING LTD)
           A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY
           INCORPORATED UNDER THE
           COMPANIES ACT, 1956
           HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT NO.8
           ICON, 5TH FLOOR, 80 FEET ROAD
           INDIRANAGAR, HAL 3RD STAGE
           BANGALORE-560 075.
                                                        ...RESPONDENT
           (BY SRI. SHARATH CHANDRA J, ADV.,)
                                 -2-
                                           NC: 2026:KHC:11887-DB
                                            COMAP No.355/2022

HC-KAR

  THIS COMAP/COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 13(1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 R/W
SECTION 37 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT,
1996, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN
COM.A.S.NO.31/2014 AS WELL AS THE ARBITRAL RECORDS
WHICH ARE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT. SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 29/11/2021 PASSED BY THE
LXXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU (CCH-83) (COMMERCIAL COURT) DISMISSING
COM.A.S.NO.31/2014 AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE
ARBITRAL AWARD DATED 30.12.2013 PASSED IN LAC
NO.2/2013 (GHATAPRABHA DIVISION PROJECT) & ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

                   ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

 The only question which requires a consideration in

this appeal is:-

Whether this appeal under Section 37 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
(' Arbitration Act ' for short) filed with an
application to condone the delay of 126 days in
filing the same is liable to be considered on
merits or not?
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:11887-DB COMAP No.355/2022 HC-KAR
2. This Commercial Appeal is filed under [Section

13](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1137274/) (1- A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

(' Arbitration Act ' for short) against the judgment dated

29.11.2021 passed by the LXXXII Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-83) ('Commercial Court'

for short) in COM.AS.No.31 of 2014.

1. Heard Shri. S. Sriranga, learned senior counsel

as instructed by Smt. Sumana Naganand and Smt. Ashwini

N. Ravindra, learned Advocates appearing for the appellant

and Shri. Sharath Chandra J, learned counsel appearing for

the respondent.

1. The facts of the case as pleaded in the appeal

are as follows:-

Appellant is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a deemed licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003. Respondent is a Company involved in

the infrastructure business. Tenders were called for the -4- NC: 2026:KHC:11887-DB COMAP No.355/2022 HC-KAR

execution of Rural Load Management Systems Works in

Ranebennur and Ghatapraba Divisions. The respondent,

being the successful bidder, was entrusted with the work of

supply of material, erection and commissioning, as well as

maintenance of installation for a period of five years. The

respondent failed to execute the contract and abandoned

the project. The contract was terminated by the appellant.

The respondent referred the disputes to an Arbitral Tribunal

for adjudication. After recording evidence and hearing both

sides, the Arbitral Tribunal allowed the claims of the

respondent in part to an extent of ₹6,86,62,587/- along

with interest at 15% per annum. Though the award was

challenged before the Commercial Court, the application

under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was dismissed on

29.11.2021, against which, the present appeal is filed.
5. Several contentions have been raised on the

merits of the matter in the appeal. It is contended by the

learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that

there are serious contentions to be urged in this appeal and -5- NC: 2026:KHC:11887-DB COMAP No.355/2022 HC-KAR

the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and the

matter should be heard on merits.

1. The learned counsel appearing for the

respondent, on the other hand, contends that the appellant

had not raised any contentions referable to Section 34(2) of the Arbitration Act before the Commercial Court and that

the application for setting aside the award was therefore

correctly decided. Further, it is contended that the Arbitral

Tribunal had considered the contentions advanced on either

side and had come to a conclusion on the facts and passed

the award. It is contended that no grounds had been made

out to set aside the award.

1. It is further contended that in the light of the

binding decisions of the Apex Court, there is no doubt that

the undue and unexplained delay in filing a commercial

appeal cannot be condoned by this Court. It is submitted

that no sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant to

enable the condonation of delay. It is submitted that since

the order of the Commercial Court was one passed on -6- NC: 2026:KHC:11887-DB COMAP No.355/2022 HC-KAR

29.11.2021, even if all the contentions raised by the

appellant are taken into account, there is a huge delay in

filing the appeal which has not been explained at all, much

less, satisfactorily explained.

1. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent

contends that an identical matter has already been

considered by this Court in Commercial Appeal

No.354/2022 and this Court, by the judgment dated

05.12.2025 has dismissed the appeal where the extent of

delay was identical.

1. In this appeal, the primary question that we

have to consider is, whether the appeal, which is preferred

with a delay of 126 days is liable to be considered on

merits at all. Admittedly, the judgment under Section 34 of

the Arbitration Act was rendered by the Commercial Court

on 29.11.2021.

1. The learned senior counsel appearing for

appellant submits that the Orders of the Apex Court in -7- NC: 2026:KHC:11887-DB COMAP No.355/2022 HC-KAR

Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In Re's

reported in (2022) 3 SCC 117, provided protection for the

period till 01.03.2022 on account of the Lockdowns due to

the COVID pandemic. An additional affidavit has also been

placed on record to explain the delay. It is stated that the

Director (Finance) and the Director (Technical) are the

Directors involved in the affairs of the project work which

forms the subject of the dispute. It is contended that since

the Director (Technical) retired on 31.05.2022 and the

position was vacant from 01.06.2022 to 05.08.2022 and

since the Director (Finance) retired on 30.06.2022 and the

said position was vacant from 01.07.2022 to 25.07.2022,

the Board of Directors could not take a decision on whether

the impugned judgment requires to be challenged.

1. Further, it is stated that during the third week of

August 2022, immediately after appointment of the

Director (Technical) and the Director (Finance), the

appellant - Company decided to challenge the judgment

and engage the advocates for the said purpose. This was -8- NC: 2026:KHC:11887-DB COMAP No.355/2022 HC-KAR

the reason given to explain the delay of 126 days in filing

the appeal.

1. We notice that the Apex Court in [Union of

India v. Varindera](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81340235/) constructions Ltd., reported in

(2020) 2 SCC 111 had held that the delay beyond the

period of 120 days in filing an appeal under Section 37 of

the Arbitration Act is not condonable at all. This view was

reiterated in [N.V.International v. State of Assam &

others](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/65855351/), reported in (2020) 2 SCC 109.

1. In [Government of Maharashtra (Water

Resources Department) Represented by Executive

Engineer v. Borse Brothers Engineers and

Contractors Private Limited.](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40623122/), reported in (2021) 6 SCC

460, a three-Judge Bench held that Section 5 of the

Limitation Act applies to the proceedings under the Arbitration Act as well provided sufficient cause is shown

and paragraphs No.53, 58 and 63 read as follows:-

"53. However, the matter does not end here.
The question still arises as to the application of Section 5 -9- NC: 2026:KHC:11887-DB COMAP No.355/2022 HC-KAR

of the Limitation Act to appeals which are governed by a
uniform 60-day period of limitation. At one extreme, we
have the judgment in N.V. International which does not
allow condonation of delay beyond 30 days, and at the
other extreme, we have an open-ended provision in
which any amount of delay can be condoned, provided
sufficient cause is shown. It is between these two
extremes that we have to steer a middle course.

The Apex Court further held as follows:-

1. x x x x x
2. In P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka this Court held that judicially engrafting principles of limitation amounts to legislating and would fly in the face of law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak.

1. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by

• 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11887-DB COMAP No.355/2022 HC-KAR

     imposing any condition whatsoever. The application
     is to be decided only within the parameters [laid down
     by](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1200243/) this Court in regard to the condonation of delay.
     In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a
     litigant to approach the court on time condoning the
     delay without any justification, putting any condition
     whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation
     of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to
     showing utter disregard to the legislature."

1. Given the aforesaid and the object of
   speedy disposal sought to be achieved both under the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, for
   appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act that
   are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation
   Act or Section 13 (1- A) of the Commercial Courts Act, a
   delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively,
   is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of
   rule. In a fit case in which a party has otherwise acted
   bona fide and not in a negligent manner, a short delay
   beyond such period can, in the discretion of the court,
   be condoned, always bearing in mind that the other side
   of the picture is that the opposite party may have
   acquired both in equity and justice, what may now be
   lost by the first party's inaction, negligence or laches."

2. As a result, it was found that the appeal filed

with a delay of 75 days beyond the period of 60 days

provided by the Commercial Courts Act was not properly

• 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11887-DB COMAP No.355/2022 HC-KAR

explained and the appeal therefore could not be

considered.

1. The learned senior counsel appearing for the

appellant is also placed reliance on the orders passed in

specific cases where longer delays have been condoned and

where the procedural formalities involved in a public entity

filing an appeal and the huge public money involved in

specific cases have been considered for the purpose of

condoning the delay. It is further submitted that the

question whether the delay is liable to be condoned in

Commercial Appeals has been referred for consideration of

a larger bench by a two-judge bench of the Apex Court by

its order dated 17.09.2024 in S.L.P. (C) No(s).21111/2024.

1. Having considered the contentions advanced, we

notice that Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act

provides a period of 60 days as the period during which an

appeal can be filed from an order of the Commercial Court

to this Court. Even if the provisions of the CPC are taken

into account, the time provided to file an appeal to the High

• 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11887-DB COMAP No.355/2022 HC-KAR

Court from a decree or order of the District Court would be

90 days. In Borse Bros. [Engineers & Contractors (P)

Ltd.](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40623122/),'s case (supra), the Apex Court considered the

contentions, the parties as well as the earlier judgments of

the Apex Court and found that if the dispute is a

commercial dispute, then the time for filing an appeal

would be 60 days. We notice that in the affidavit initially

filed in support of the application for condonation of delay

and in the additional affidavit, the contentions raised are

more or less similar. It is stated that the judgment of the

Commercial Court was rendered on 29.11.2021 and that

the suo motu extension of limitation period by the Apex

Court ended on 28.02.2022. It is therefore admitted that

the appeal was required to be filed on or before

30.05.2022. Even if the said contention is accepted, it is

clear that the delay can be condoned only on sufficient

cause being shown.

1. Thereafter, even if the contention of the

appellant that limitation stood extended till 28.02.2022 is

• 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11887-DB COMAP No.355/2022 HC-KAR

accepted, the appellant's had ample time to file an appeal

within the period of limitation. However, they chose not to

do so. Thereafter, the affidavit filed in support of the

application-I.A.No.1/2022 for condonation of delay; does

not disclose any sufficient cause for condonation of the

delay. The only reason that we find for the delay in filing

the appeal from a reading of the application for

condonation is official lethargy.

1. The learned senior counsel appearing for the

appellant submits that there are serious contentions to be

raised in the appeal and that the public funds will be put in

jeopardy if the delay is not condoned and the appeal is not

considered on merits. We are of the opinion that the said

aspect was one which should have gained the attention of

the responsible persons who admittedly had full knowledge

about the dismissal of Section 34 application.

1. The Apex Court in the case of [State of Uttar

Pradesh v. Satish Chand Shivhare and Brothers](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/152672334/) reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2151, after considering

• 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11887-DB COMAP No.355/2022 HC-KAR

the extensive precedents, has clearly held that the law of

limitation binds everybody including the Government and

the usual explanation, red tapism, pushing of files and the

rigmarole of procedures cannot be accepted as sufficient

cause for condonation of delay. The same view has been

reiterated in several judgments:-

• Inder Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported
in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 600;

• Office of the Chief Post Master General and others v.
Living Media India and another reported in (2012) 3
SCC 563;

• State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Bherulal reported in (2020) 10 SCC 654;

• State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and others reported
in (1996) 3 SCC 132; and
• Special Tehsildar, Land Acqusition, Kerala v. K.V.
Ayisumma reported in (1996) 10 SCC 634.
20. We are of the clear opinion that the competent

officers of the appellant who were fully aware of the time

limit should have applied their minds in time and made

sure that the appeals were filed within time or at least

within a reasonable time thereafter. The lethargy on the

• 15 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11887-DB COMAP No.355/2022 HC-KAR

part of the officials cannot be a ground for extending the

time for filing an appeal and will definitely not be a good

ground or a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. We

are of the opinion that no good grounds have been made

out for condoning the delay. The application-I.A.No.1/2022

is therefore dismissed. Consequently, the appeal shall also

stand dismissed.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.

Sd/-

(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE

                                 Sd/-

(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE

BSR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29