- 1 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB

COMAP No.63/2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9

TH

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.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SHIVA KUMAR K.B. ADV.,)

AND:

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 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB

COMAP No.63/2023

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:10.04.2 023)

- 3 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB

COMAP No.63/2023

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). SE T

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 VIJAYKUM AR A. PATIL

- 4 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB

COMAP No.63/2023

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 t o 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

- 5 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB

COMAP No.63/2023

application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC for

temporary injunction against the defendants and the ir

agents restraining them from carrying out the quarr y

operations in the suit schedule property. The appe llant

filed a written statement denying the assertions made in

the plaint. The Commercial Court, under the impugn ed

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 th e

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

- 6 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB

COMAP No.63/2023

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 tha t the

plaintiff claims that he has transferred Rs.15,00,000/- in

favour of M/s.Sheega Exports, which does not posses s 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 t he

Commercial Court, without considering any of the aspects

- 7 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB

COMAP No.63/2023

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 impu gned

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 Co urt

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 pla intiff

is ready and willing to pay the balance amount. It is

submitted that the Commercial Court has clearly com e 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, d raft

agreement was sent and thereafter, no steps have be en

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

- 8 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB

COMAP No.63/2023

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 activit y, 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 FI R is

also registered against the appellant. It is furth er

contended that receipt of the amount by the appellant-firm

and the communication of the draft agreement amount s to

implied contract between the parties, which he seek s 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 ORS

1

(b) H.T.VEERA REDDI Vs. KISTAMMA

2

1

2007 (5) Kar LJ 625

2

MANU/TN/0664/1972

- 9 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB

COMAP No.63/2023

(c) N.MOHAMMAD Vs. THE MANDAL

PANCHAYAT, KALGHATGI

3

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 materi al

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 a s a

partner in the appellant-firm and other reliefs. Th e

respondent No.1 also filed an application under Ord er

XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC for temporary injunct ion

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

3

MANU/KA/0364/1998

- 10 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB

COMAP No.63/2023

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 impug ned

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 plaintif f 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 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB

COMAP No.63/2023

made to M/s.Sheega Exports. The bank statement

produced by the appellant at Annexure-E also indica tes

that the amount was transferred to M/s.Sheega Expor ts

and the said M/s.Sheega Exports is not a party to the suit.

The document at Annexure-H1 produced by the appella nt

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 Export s

with regard to his intention to transfer the amount of

Rs.15,00,000/- and the balance amount, as claimed t o

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 writt en

- 12 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB

COMAP No.63/2023

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 ag ainst

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 fr om

carrying on the business activities will cause a hu ge

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 im plied

contract by the appellant-firm can be adjudicated by the

Commercial Court in accordance with law. It is als o

- 13 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB

COMAP No.63/2023

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 appell ant.

The Commercial Court erroneously came to a conclusi on

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 consideratio n of

Rs.2.10 Crores and placing reliance on such a docum ent

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 allege d

implied contract by holding prima facie that the alleged

transaction between the parties is only an intentio n 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 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB

COMAP No.63/2023

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 sai d

judgments will not come to his aid while applying t he

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. T he

Commercial Court shall dispose of the suit on its m erits

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 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:7343-DB

COMAP No.63/2023

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