- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33214 WP No. 25881 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 25881 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: BHASKAR MARGASAHAYAM S/O MARGAHAYA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.4053 SHOBHA VALLEY VIEW HERITAGE, IOPP TO V LEGACY MARRIGAE HALL, V LEGACY ROAD HOSAKEREHALLI, DWARAKANAGAR UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANASHANKARI BENGALURU-560098 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR KO.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI RAVINDRA GANGADHAR S/O B.M. GANGADHARA REP. BY HIS AUTHOPRISED SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI B.M. GANGADHARAIAH S/O LATE MOOGOORAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS PRESENTLY R/AT NO.29 2ND STAGE, 2ND BLOCK 1ST B MAIN ROAD, NAGARABHAVI NEAR BDA COMPLEX BENGALURU NORTH BNENGALURU-560040 2. JABM ONE SOURCE PVT. LTD HAVIONG REGISTERED OFFICE AT 254/185/26, 2ND MAIN “BASWER SANNIDHI” Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33214 WP No. 25881 of 2025 ACHI ASHIRWAD-2, NEELADRI LAYOUT DODDATHOGURU ROAD BENGALURU -560100 DIRECTORS AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT. AND ALSO AVAILABLE AT HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT 2ND MAIN ROAD, NILA INVESTMENT LAYOUT BETTADASPURA ELECTORNIC CITY PHASE-1 BENGALURU-560100 3. MR RVSN ANE RAM TEJA ARIGELA DIRECTOR OF JABM ONE SOURCE PVT. LTD HAVING OFFICE AT 254/185/26, 2ND MAIN BASWER SANNIDHI ACHI ASHIRWAD-2, NEELADRI LAYOUT DODDATRHOGAURU ROAD BENGALURU-560100 DIRECTORS AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AND ALSO AVAILABLE AT 2ND MAIN ROAD, NILA INVESTMENT LAYOUT BETTADSPURA ELECTORNIC CITY PHASE-1 BENGALURU-560100 4. MR SUNIL MORE SHIVAJI RAO DIRECOTR OF JABM ONE SOURCE PVT. LTD HAVING OFFICE ART 254/185/326, 2ND MAIN, BASWER SANNIDHI ACHI ASHIRWAD-2, NEELADRI LAYOUT DODDATHOGURU ROAD, BENGALURU-560100 DIRECTORS AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AND ALSO AVAILABLE AT 2ND MAIN ROAD NILA INVESTMENT LAYOUT BETTADASPURA ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE-1 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33214 WP No. 25881 of 2025 BENGALURU-560100 5. MR. SHIVAKUMAR G AUTHORISED SIGNATORY OF JABM ONE SOURCE PVT. LTD HAVING OFFICE AT 254/185/26 2ND MAIN BASWER SANNIDHI ACHI ASHIRWAD-2, NEELADRI LAYOUT DODDATHOGURU ROAD BENGALURU-560100 DIRECTORS AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AND ALSO AVAILABLE AT 2ND MAIN ROAD NILA INVESTMENT LAYOUT BETTADASPURTA ELECTORINIC CITY PHASE-1 BENGALURU-560100 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.B. RUDRESH., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD-04.07.2025 PASSED BY THE IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU ON LA. NO.2 IN EX.PTN. NO.30/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-J BY ISSUE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AS A CASE MAY BE AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33214 WP No. 25881 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the entire proceedings instituted by the respondents seeking to execute the arbitral award. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the arbitral award does not come in the city limits of Bengaluru, for filing the execution petition before the concerned Court. 3. The said submission does not merit any acceptance in the light of the judgment of SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. VS. ABDUL SAMAD AND ANOTHER1, wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: "18. It is in the aforesaid context that the view adopted by the Delhi High Court in Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. [Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 511 : (2009) 159 DLT 579] records that Section 42 of the Act would not apply to an execution application, which is not an arbitral proceeding and that Section 38 of the Code would apply to a decree passed by the court, while in the case of an award no court has passed the decree. 19. The Madras High Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Sivakama Sundari [Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Sivakama Sundari, 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 1290 : (2011) 4 LW 745] referred to Section 46 of the said 1 (2018) 3 SCC 622 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33214 WP No. 25881 of 2025 Code, which spoke of precepts but stopped at that. In the context of the Code, thus, the view adopted is that the decree of a civil court is liable to be executed primarily by the court, which passes the decree where an execution application has to be filed at the first instance. An award under Section 36 of the said Act, is equated to a decree of the court for the purposes of execution and only for that purpose. Thus, it was rightly observed that while an award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is deemed to be a decree under Section 36 of the said Act, there was no deeming fiction anywhere to hold that the court within whose jurisdiction the arbitral award was passed should be taken to be the court, which passed the decree. The said Act actually transcends all territorial barriers. Conclusion 20. We are, thus, unhesitatingly of the view that the enforcement of an award through its execution can be filed anywhere in the country where such decree can be executed and there is no requirement for obtaining a transfer of the decree from the court, which would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings." 4. In that light, the petition does not deserve any entertainment. The petition thus stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KTY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4