- 1 - NC: 2026:KHC:29539-DB COMAP No. 415 of 2025 HC-KAR 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.415 OF 2025 BETWEEN: DEVANCHAL ENTERPRISES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY: BALAKRISHNA RASTOGI, PARTNER REGISTERED ADDRESS: ARYA NAGAR, NEAR NEGA GAS, KASHIPUR DISTRICT, UDHAM SINGH NAGAR, UTTARAKHAND - 244713. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHRAYANSH SINGH, ADVOCATE) AND: Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: High Court I BRANDS BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED of Karnataka REPRESENTED BY: MOHINDER SINGH KHAIRA, DIRECTOR OFFICE ADDRESS: NO.750, 1ST FLOOR, 22ND CROSS, 15TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, GKVK POST, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560065. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANIRUDH SURESH, ADVOCATE) THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.06.2025 PASSED BY THE LD. LXXXVI - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:29539-DB COMAP No. 415 of 2025 HC-KAR ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN COM. A.P.NO.88/2025 (ANNEXURE - A-1). THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 against an Order dated 18.06.2025 [impugned order], passed in Com.A.P.No.88/2025, by the LXXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru [Commercial Court] under Section 36(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act]. 2. In terms of the arbitral award, the Arbitral Tribunal directed payment of `74,48,750/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 01.04.2017, till the date of the award and at the rate of 9% per annum until realization. - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29539-DB COMAP No. 415 of 2025 HC-KAR 3. The respondent challenged the arbitral award on several grounds including that the arbitral proceedings were without jurisdiction. 4. In terms of impugned order, learned Commercial Court had considered it apposite to stay the impugned award. 5. It is the appellant’s case that the application under Section 34 of the A&C Act for setting aside the award was filed beyond the period stipulated under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act.

6. The question of limitation was framed as a preliminary issue by order dated 11.06.2026 in Com.A.P.No.88/2025 and has been decided in favour of the respondent. Prima facie, the present appeal does not appear to be maintainable, as an order passed under Section 36(2) of the A&C Act is not an appealable order under Section 37 of the A&C Act. However, even without going into the said question, we find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, particularly since the appellant’s objection regarding limitation has been rejected by the learned Commercial Court. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29539-DB COMAP No. 415 of 2025 HC-KAR 7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, this will not preclude the appellant from availing its remedies available in law against the order passed under Section 36(2) of the A&C Act. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

- 1 - NC: 2026:KHC:29539-DB COMAP No. 415 of 2025 HC-KAR 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.415 OF 2025 BETWEEN: DEVANCHAL ENTERPRISES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY: BALAKRISHNA RASTOGI, PARTNER REGISTERED ADDRESS: ARYA NAGAR, NEAR NEGA GAS, KASHIPUR DISTRICT, UDHAM SINGH NAGAR, UTTARAKHAND - 244713. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHRAYANSH SINGH, ADVOCATE) AND: Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: High Court I BRANDS BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED of Karnataka REPRESENTED BY: MOHINDER SINGH KHAIRA, DIRECTOR OFFICE ADDRESS: NO.750, 1ST FLOOR, 22ND CROSS, 15TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, GKVK POST, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560065. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANIRUDH SURESH, ADVOCATE) THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.06.2025 PASSED BY THE LD. LXXXVI - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:29539-DB COMAP No. 415 of 2025 HC-KAR ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN COM. A.P.NO.88/2025 (ANNEXURE - A-1). THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 against an Order dated 18.06.2025 [impugned order], passed in Com.A.P.No.88/2025, by the LXXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru [Commercial Court] under Section 36(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act]. 2. In terms of the arbitral award, the Arbitral Tribunal directed payment of `74,48,750/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 01.04.2017, till the date of the award and at the rate of 9% per annum until realization. - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29539-DB COMAP No. 415 of 2025 HC-KAR 3. The respondent challenged the arbitral award on several grounds including that the arbitral proceedings were without jurisdiction. 4. In terms of impugned order, learned Commercial Court had considered it apposite to stay the impugned award. 5. It is the appellant’s case that the application under Section 34 of the A&C Act for setting aside the award was filed beyond the period stipulated under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act.

6. The question of limitation was framed as a preliminary issue by order dated 11.06.2026 in Com.A.P.No.88/2025 and has been decided in favour of the respondent. Prima facie, the present appeal does not appear to be maintainable, as an order passed under Section 36(2) of the A&C Act is not an appealable order under Section 37 of the A&C Act. However, even without going into the said question, we find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, particularly since the appellant’s objection regarding limitation has been rejected by the learned Commercial Court. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29539-DB COMAP No. 415 of 2025 HC-KAR 7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, this will not preclude the appellant from availing its remedies available in law against the order passed under Section 36(2) of the A&C Act. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25