BharatTaxGST

M/S Royal Exports vs. M/S Longitude Exports Private Limited

Original PDF →
COMAP/306/2026HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01038870202617 June 2026Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,K.S. HEMALEKHA4 pages
For Respondent: SRI R.V. SUBRAMANYA NAIK, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W MR. NEERAJ SASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR C/ RESPONDENT

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29455-DB COMAP No. 306 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 306 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. M/S ROYAL EXPORTS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PARTNERSHIP ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.79/80, MAIN ROAD CHIKKA ADUGODI, NEW EXTENSION TAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD, DRC POST BENGALURU - 560 029 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. NARENDRA MANGLANI …APPELLANT (BY SRI ABHISHEK H., ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASANNA KUMAR B.T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. LONGITUDE EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANEIS ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 48, LAVELLE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. PRADIP PRABAKAR …RESPONDENT (BY SRI R.V. SUBRAMANYA NAIK, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W MR. NEERAJ SASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR C/ RESPONDENT) Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29455-DB COMAP No. 306 of 2026 THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1)(a) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 R/W SECTION 13(1-A) OF COMMERCIAL COURT ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.03.2026 MADE IN COM.A.A.NO.44/2025 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT), BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, AND REVERSE THE SAME BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1.

The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act] impugning an order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge (Dedicated Commercial Court), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru [Commercial Court] in Com.A.A.No.44/2025. 2. The respondent had filed an application under Section 9 of the A&C Act, seeking interim measures of protection. The said petition was moved in the context of disputes that arisen between the parties in respect of the schedule property which was leased by the respondent to the appellant. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29455-DB

3.

It was the respondent's contention that the appellant had failed to pay the lease rental in respect of the scheduled property and it was necessary to secure the same. The said petition was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay the last agreed monthly rent of Rs.15,50,000/- plus GST.

4.

During the course of the present proceedings, the parties resolved the disputes. The appellant agreed to vacate the scheduled property and hand over the peaceful possession of the scheduled property to the respondent on or before 01.07.2026. The parties have further agreed that the security deposit of Rs.1,15,00,000/- which is lying with the respondent shall be adjusted towards final settlement of all monetary claims of the respondent for the period upto 01.07.2026 and neither parties will have further claims against each other.

5.

In view of the above, the appellant had agreed to file an undertaking by way of an affidavit setting out the said terms of settlement and undertaking to vacate the scheduled property on or before 01.07.2026. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29455-DB

6.

The appellant has since filed the said undertaking, a copy of which has also been served on the respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent acknowledges that the said undertaking records the agreed terms of the settlement between the parties and requests that the appeal may be disposed of by taking the same on record and directing that the parties would be bound to the same.

7.

In view of the above, the present appeal is, disposed.

8.

The interim orders operating against the appellant shall stand vacated.

9.

We direct the parties shall be bound on to the terms as set out in the aforementioned undertaking. (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

KMV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 21

Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.