Sri Mohan M B v. Karnataka Bank Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 274 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

SRI. MOHAN M.B., S/O.LATE. BALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O.NO.517, II STAGE, 10TH CROSS, OPP. NAKALAGODU RAVI'S HOUSE, JAYANAGARA EXTENSION, CHIKKAHONNENAHALLI, HASSAN – 573 202. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.C.SHANTA KUMAR,ADVOCATE)

AND:

KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT MANGALORE INTER-ALIA A BRANCH AT VIDYANAGARA, HASSAN CITY, HASSAN – 573 202, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, SRI. MAHESH KUMAR M.A. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BHARAT KUMAR.S, FOR SRI. GANESH A.,ADVOCATES)

THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL FILED UNDER SEC.13(1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN IN COM.O.S.NO.37/2022 DATED.02.03.2026 AND DISMISS THE SUIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.

Digitally signed by MALA K N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The present Commercial Appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, has been filed impugning the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2026 passed in Commercial O.S.No.37/2022 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Hassan.

¶2The aforesaid suit has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.10,07,670/- with cost and interest at 17.31% per annum from 17.10.2022.

¶3On completion of the pleadings, learned Commercial Court framed the following issues for trial: "1. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant has borrowed loan of Rs.8,00,000/- from the bank for the purpose of purchase of plant and machineries for manufacture of paper bags and has agreed to repay the aforesaid loan amount with interest at the rate of

9.96% p.a and in default, overdue interest at the rate of 5% p.a.?

¶2Whether plaintiff proves that defendant is liable to pay interest at the rate of 17.31% (12.31% + 5%) on the due amount of Rs. 10,07,670/-?

¶3Whether the defendant proves that there is no cause of action to file the suit?

¶4Whether the defendant proves that due to fire mischief in the factory, the plaintiff has received loan of Rs.8,00,000/- from the Central Government?

¶5Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to the relief sought for?

¶6What order and decree?"

¶4In support of its case, the plaintiff/Bank examined Mr.Srikanth S.M., Bank Manager, Karnataka Bank Limited, Hassan as PW-1 and produced the documentary evidence in Exs.P1 to P9. On the other hand, the appellant/defendant got himself examined as DW-1 and they produced documentary evidence as per Exs.D1 to D7 to support his case.

¶5The learned Commercial Court has decided the issue No.1 affirmative; issue No.2 partly affirmative, issue Nos.3 and 4 negative and issue No.5 affirmative and has granted the decree for a sum of Rs.10,07,670/- with

interest at the rate of 9.66% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization of the said decree.

¶6The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant has not argued anything except for the fact that because of the COVID-19 and financial constraint, the amount could not be paid. Further he has argued that the interest should have been not more than 6% per annum, whereas the interest has been awarded at the rate of 9.66%.

¶7The learned counsel for the respondent/Bank has supported the impugned judgment and decree.

¶8We have gone through the impugned judgment and decree as well as the entire records.

¶9There is no serious dispute with respect to the amount that the plaintiff/Bank is entitled to recover with interest i.e., @ 9.66% per annum, which is agreed rate of the Bank. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that he will settle the dues with the Bank within a period of two months.

¶10We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and examined the evidence and the records of the case. We do not find that the impugned judgment and decree requires an interference. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal. However, allow the appellant settles the Bank dues within a period of two months from today. The impugned judgment and decree shall not be executed for a period of two months from today to enable the appellant to settle the dues. However, if he fails to settle the dues of the Bank within a period of two months from today, i.e., on or before 15th December 2026, the Bank shall be at liberty to execute the decree.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/- (H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN) JUDGE KNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19