Lawyer's Assumption That Judgment Was Postponed Cannot Justify IRCT's Delayed Appeal: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has recently ruled that a lawyer's assumption that judgment would be postponed cannot justify a delayed appeal. The failure to check whether the judgment was subsequently delivered remained unexplained.

Dismissing a commercial appeal filed by the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) against Amulya Enterprises, the court refused to condone a 92-day delay in challenging a Commercial Court decree dated June 11, 2024.

A Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice T.P. Vivekananda, in a judgment dated October 9, 2026, observed:

“The fact that pronouncement had been adjourned on earlier occasions may account for counsel's impression on the date of judgment. It does not explain the failure to ascertain the result thereafter. The steps taken during that period to verify the status of the suit are not disclosed.”

The dispute arose from a commercial suit filed by Amulya Enterprises, represented by its proprietor Mahesh Kumar, against IRCTC. On June 11, 2024, the LXXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, functioning as the Exclusive Commercial Court in Bengaluru, decreed the suit in favour of Amulya Enterprises.

IRCTC challenged the decree under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, it filed the appeal on November 19, 2024, 92 days late.

Its counsel explained that judgment pronouncement had been adjourned several times. Assuming it would be postponed again, he did not appear on June 11, 2024, and learned of the judgment only in July. Certified copies were received on August 12.

IRCTC blamed the subsequent delay on internal approvals. Its counsel also cited a family bereavement, while the corporation said it had been advised to await another appeal involving a similar limitation issue.

Amulya Enterprises opposed the application, pointing to the lack of explanations for counsel's inaction and the approval process.

The court found these explanations inadequate. It also rejected reliance on the pending appeal and IRCTC's arguments on merits. Citing the need for speedy resolution of commercial disputes, the Bench dismissed the delay-condonation application and the appeal.

For Appellant (IRCTC): Advocate Abhinay Y.T.

For Respondent (Amulya Enterprises): Advocate N.S. Sriraj Gowda.