Karnataka High Court
M/S Veave Technoloigies Pvt Ltd vs Smt Varalaxmi on 21 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:32587-DB
WP No. 24473 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT PETITION NO. 24473 OF 2024 (GM-CON)
BETWEEN:
M/S VEAVE TECHNOLOIGIES PVT. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR,
M G VINAY KUMAR,
NO. 123/107, 27TH CROSS,
7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 082.
KARNATAKA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMU S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. VARALAXMI,
Digitally signed W/O LATE M. LAXMINARAYANA GUPTA,
by ANNAPURNA PROPRIETOR,
G
M/S GALAXY AGRI - TECH,
Location: HIGH KALABURAGI,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THROUGH GPA HOLDER,
MR. RAGHAVENDRA GUPTA,
S/O LATE M. LAXMINARAYAN GUPTA,
RESIDING AT H.NO. 1/258,
SITUATED AT SY NO. 43/2,
NEAR MOTHER TERESSA HOSPITAL,
UPLAON VILLAGE, KALABURGAI,
BANGALORE - 57.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR C. CHANASPUR ,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:32587-DB
WP No. 24473 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE
ON THE FILE OF A/1446/2024 DATED 09/07/2024 AT
ANNEXURE-C AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE REMAND THE
COMP.NO.68/2020 BACK TO THE FILE OF HONBLE DISTRICT
CONSUMER COMMISSION AT KALABURAGI BY GIVING
REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This petition has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 09.07.2024 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, in Case No-A/1446/2024.
3. The contention is that, the respondent herein had approached the petitioner seeking issuance of ISO certificates. It is stated that the petitioner had coordinated to -3- NC: 2025:KHC:32587-DB WP No. 24473 of 2024 HC-KAR issue ISO certificate with GMP and HACCP certificates to the respondent. The validity of certificates, which was three years was required to be renewed by an annual surveillance audit, which was to be conducted at the end of the 1st year, 2nd year and 3rd year, for which the respondents had to pay sum of Rs.9,000/- per year for two consecutive years, for the surveillance charges. As per the agreed terms, the respondent was required to pay an amount of Rs.47,200/- to the petitioner towards the cost of ISO certificates.
4. The respondent had made payment of Rs.47,200/- and 4 ISO certificates were issued by the petitioner, which were initially valid for a period of one year. After getting ISO certificate, the respondent was selling food grains with ISO certificates. It is stated that the respondent filed consumer complaint against the petitioner before the District Commission at Kalaburagi in Complaint No.68/2020 alleging that traders refused to purchase food grains as ISO certificate issued by the petitioner was invalid and hence claimed compensation. It is stated that by means of an ex- -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:32587-DB WP No. 24473 of 2024 HC-KAR parte order, the complaint of the respondent was partially allowed.
5. It is stated that it is only after receipt of notice on 29.04.2024 from the police of the execution case, of Ex.No.1/2024 to execute the order passed by the District Commission at Kalaburagi, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission. It is alleged that without going into the merits of the case, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of delay by its order dated 09.07.2024. It is stated that the grounds mentioned in the affidavit for condonation of delay filed before the State Commission were not considered; before the notice of execution proceedings, the petitioner had no notice of the matter, pending before the District Commission. It is stated that the petitioner is not a consumer and therefore, it has a good case on merits. In the end, it has been pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner that he only wants an opportunity of hearing to be accorded to him by the State Commission, by hearing the matter on merits. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:32587-DB WP No. 24473 of 2024 HC-KAR
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the notice of the District Commission was stated to be served on the petitioner during the Covid-19 pandemic and as such, such notice cannot be given any sanctity as the petitioner had not received the said notice.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the petition stating that it has been recorded in the order of the District Commission that notice issued was duly served upon the petitioner, but he remained absent. As such, the proceedings were taken ex-parte on 19.12.2020.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent has further stated that the delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission is of 872 days and therefore the appeal has been rightly rejected by the State Commission.
9. Having perused the record and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the aforesaid Consumer Comp.No.68/2020 was filed on 21.10.2021. On internal page No.9, in paragraph -6- NC: 2025:KHC:32587-DB WP No. 24473 of 2024 HC-KAR No.3 of the Order of the District Commission dated 29.10.2021, states as under:
"After admitting the complaint, notice has been issued to OP and served, but the OP has remained absent and as such, the OP has been placed exparte on 19.12.2020".
10. While partly allowing the complaint, it has been directed that the petitioner would deposit a sum of Rs.47,200/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint that is 21.10.2020, till realization of the entire amount before the Commission on or before 29.01.2022. Further, sum of Rs.25,000/- was directed to be paid as compensation towards loss, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.4,000/- towards cost of proceedings. It is also mentioned in the order of the Consumer Forum that a copy of its order be sent free of cost through post, to both parties.
11. It is pertinent to mention here that in this petition, the petitioner has not challenged the order of the District Forum.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:32587-DB WP No. 24473 of 2024 HC-KAR
12. A perusal of the impugned order of 09.07.2024 passed by the State Commission reflects that in view of the delay of 872 days in filing the appeal, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act supported by an affidavit was considered which reflected that the petitioner came to know about the case only when it received the execution notice from the police and thereafter it filed an appeal. It has been stated that the grounds urged for non-filing of the appeal within time was not satisfactory; that the appellant had not established before the State Commission that the appeal was filed belatedly due to unavoidable circumstances; mere administrative delay for filing the appeal is not a valid ground to condone the delay. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed and consequently the appeal was also dismissed. It was directed that the amount in deposit would be remitted to the District Commission to pay the same to the complainant.
13. In the present writ petition, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the affidavit therein have -8- NC: 2025:KHC:32587-DB WP No. 24473 of 2024 HC-KAR not been filed. It is not stated in the petition also that after the order of the District Commission on 29.10.2021, no copy of the order was received by the petitioner. It is further pertinent to mention herein that the petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and Certificate of Incorporation has been enclosed at page No.39 of the petition. However, no resolution of Board of Directors has been enclosed authorizing filing of this petition or engagement of advocate. However, as is evident from the quoted paragraph of the order of the District Commission, notice was issued to the petitioner and was served. No material to demonstrate otherwise has been furnished in the instant petition. There is also no averment in the petition that due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner was prevented to appear before the District Commission or that it did not receive notice as observed in the order of the District Commission.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, we decline to interfere in the order impugned and we are satisfied that the State Commission has passed the order impugned in accordance -9- NC: 2025:KHC:32587-DB WP No. 24473 of 2024 HC-KAR with law and the provisions of Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which is the provision of limitation.
This petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21