- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26024 WP No. 17879 of 2025 C/W WP No. 19971 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 17879 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 19971 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) IN WP No. 17879/2025 BETWEEN: M/S ITW CATALYST PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 2013, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 16/1, 1ST FLOOR, AVS COMPOUND, 80 FEET ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 034. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR. THOMAS JOSEPH. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S.KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. MARCADEO ENTERPRISES, A PARTNERSHIP REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1931, HAVING OFFICE AT 127/1/26, W-1 SAKET NAGAR, KANPUR UTTAR PRADESH - 208 014 Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26024 WP No. 17879 of 2025 C/W WP No. 19971 of 2025 REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. YOGESH AGGARWAL. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ADITYA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.06.2025 PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL COURT, BANGALORE IN COMM. EX PET NO.721 OF 2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A. FILED BY THE DECREE HOLDER FOR RELEASE OF AMOUNT OF INR 31,20,520/- ANNEXURE – J AND ETC. IN WP NO. 19971/2025 BETWEEN: M/S. MARCADEO ENTERPRISES (A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932), HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 127/1/26, W-1, SAKET NAGAR, KANPUR – 208 014, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI ADITYA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S ITW CATALYST PRIVATE LIMTED (A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013), HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 16/1, 1ST FLOOR, AVS COMPOUND, 80FT ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 034. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26024 WP No. 17879 of 2025 C/W WP No. 19971 of 2025 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALLING FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS IN COM. EX. NO. 721 OF 2024 ON THE FILE OF LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10 JUNE 2025, WHEREBY THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. NIL/2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR RELEASING OF 75 PERCENT DEPOSIT MADE BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE MSME ACT, 2006 MADE IN COM.A.P. 84 OF 2024 TOWARDS PARTIAL SATISFACTION OF THE EXECUTION OF THE ARBITRAL AWARD WAS REJECTED THEREIN AS ANNEXURE-E3 AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26024 WP No. 17879 of 2025 C/W WP No. 19971 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER These petitions call in question a solitary order or its aftermath. W.P.No.17879/2025 is preferred by the judgment debtor. W.P.No.19971/2025 is preferred by the decree holder. The parties to the lis were parties to a Service Agreement and the dispute arose about the said Service Agreement and the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, in which an award is passed in Claim Petition No.86/2022. The said award is called in question invoking section 19 read with Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Heard Sri.S.Kalyan Basavaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Aditya Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in W.P.No.17879/2025 and Sri.Aditya Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.S.Kalyan Basavaraj learned counsel appearing for the respondent in W.P.No.19971/2025. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26024 WP No. 17879 of 2025 C/W WP No. 19971 of 2025 3. The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Court, Kanpur, had passed an order of deposit of an amount of Rs.41,60,693/-.The issue is not with regard to the merit of the claim. The petitioner files an appeal under Section 34 before the Court at Bangalore. The Court realizing the fact that it does not have jurisdiction, directs the petitioner to file the same before the competent Court at Kanpur. While granting stay in the said petition, deposit of 75% of the amount i.e., 75% of Rs.41,60,693/- was made pursuant to a direction of the concerned Court. 4. In the light of the case being directed to present it before the competent Court at Kanpur, what happens to the deposit has led to these proceedings. The deposit was sought to be withdrawn by the judgment debtor and the decree holder both. The applications come to be rejected. After rejection of the applications, the concerned Court issues a warrant against the judgment debtor and therefore, the judgment debtor is at the doors of this Court. The issue now would be the proceedings are now pending before the Kanpur Court. The - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26024 WP No. 17879 of 2025 C/W WP No. 19971 of 2025 Kanpur Court to entertain the petition, the petitioner-judgment debtor has to deposit 75% of the amount which is a statutory requirement. Therefore, the amount lying before this Court is sought to be withdrawn by the judgment debtor and to be deposited before the concerned Court at Kanpur. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the decree holder submits that in the event deposit would not be made, his execution would be put to jeopardy and the Court would not continue the execution proceedings, if the Kanpur Court would not pass any order. In that light, to resolve the issue, I deem it appropriate to direct the Registry of the Court of Commercial Court, Bengaluru, to transmit the amount that is in deposit i.e., 75% to the Registry of the concerned Court at Kanpur, without brooking any delay. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter is listed today for such deposit before the Kanpur Court and places on record the evidence of such listing. In that light, the Registry of the concerned Court shall - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26024 WP No. 17879 of 2025 C/W WP No. 19971 of 2025 forthwith transmit the amount in deposit to the concerned Court in Civil Misc. Case No.18/2025. 7. In the light of the said transmission and the interim order subsisting today, I deem it appropriate to extend the same for a period of three weeks so as to enable the Registry to transmit the amount and the petitioner seek appropriate order before the concerned Court. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder submits that the Apex Court in the case of RAHUL S SHAH vs. JINENDRA KUMAR GANDHI (2021) 6 SCC 418, has directed that the execution cases must be concluded within one year from its institution. He would further contend that the present execution is pending for the last nine months and there should be a direction from this Court to conclude it in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RAHUL S SHAH supra. The submissions though would merit acceptance, this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the concerned Court at Kanpur is hearing a petition under Section 34 of the Act. Since this Court has continued the interim order for a period of three - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26024 WP No. 17879 of 2025 C/W WP No. 19971 of 2025 weeks for the petitioner to secure an order at the hands of the concerned Court at Kanpur, for those three weeks, the execution cannot be permitted to go on. In the event the petitioner would not secure any order before the concerned Court at Kanpur, the execution proceedings naturally would be permitted to be continued. With the aforesaid observations, the petitions stand disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47 CT:SS