- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38465 WP No. 19713 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 19713 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. TREE WALKER TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1677, 3rd FLOOR, 27TH MAIN, 22ND CROSS, SECTOR-2, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 102 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR NIKHIL CHANDRAS GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 19.03.2024 AT ANNEXURE-W TO CAUSE TITLE OF ARBITRATION AWARD ANNEXURE-C AND AMENDED AS PER THE 2ND AMENDED EXECUTION APPLICATION AT ANNEXURE-P1 2. ALSO AT NO. 106/4-A, 1ST MAIN RELIABLE RESIDENCY, HARALUR ROAD SECTOR-2, EXTENSION HSR LAYOUT, OPP. TO VIBDYOUR SCHOOL, BANGALORE - 560 102. 3. ALSO AT NO. 1667, III FLOOR 27TH MAIN, 22ND CROSS, SECTOR - II HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 012 Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38465 WP No. 19713 of 2025 4 M/S. TREE WALKER TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD., 2ND FLOOR, 1567, 27TH MAIN 1ST SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 102. 5. ALSO AT NO. 139, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS RELIABLE RESIDENCY LAYOUT PHASE 3, PWD QUARTERS, 1ST SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, HARALUR, BANGALORE - 560 102. IS REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS a. SHRI. NIKIL CHANDRA GUPTA B. SHRI. SURJAN SINGH C. SHRI. SUBHRAJYOTI PATHAK 6. M/S SOONYA RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED ALSO AT NO. 4S, K NO. 648, RELIABLE RESIDENCY, HARLUR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 102. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR THE APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 6 AND JDR NOS.1 TO 9 ABOVE ARE REPRESENTED BY SHRI. NIKIL CHANDRA GUPTA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS DIRECTOR OF JDR NO.4 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIVIAN CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S MARULA CONCEPTS PVT. LTD., B 20, DEFENCE COLONY - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38465 WP No. 19713 of 2025 NEW DELHI - 110 024 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. SHIVAM SOOD …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHISHIRA AMARNATH, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER AMENDMENT OF JDR COMPANY NAME DATED 19.03.2024 AND DIRECT TO REMOVE AND QUASH THE DIRECTORS OF JDR NO. 1 TO 7 VIZ. 1.MR. NIKIL CHANDRA GUPTA, 2. MR. SURJAN SINGH, 3. MR. SUBHRAJYOTI PATHAK AND FURTHER STAY THE ORDER OF SALE OF MOVABLES OF JDR NO. 6. TRANSFEREE COMPANY WHO IS NOT A PARTY TO ARBITRATION OF HONBLE EXECUTING COURT AND STAY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN COM ES. 3/2021, CCH LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURTS. BANGALORE TILL DISPOSAL OF THIS WRIT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38465 WP No. 19713 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners - judgment debtors are at the doors of this Court calling in question an order of the Executing Court dated 19.03.2024, by which, the amendment of the name of the judgment debtors - Company filed by the decree holder, comes to be allowed. 2. Heard Sri. Vivian Chandra Shekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Shishira Amarnath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The history of the case dates back to April, 2013, when the respondent is claimed to have approached the first appellant to develop a mobile application called 'Hotel Life'. The dispute between the two arose and for the resolution of the dispute, the parties resort to Arbitration. An arbitral award comes to be passed on 04.03.2016. The arbitral award was not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38465 WP No. 19713 of 2025 challenged by the judgment debtors. Time passes by. Therefore, the respondent - decree holder seeks to execute the award of the Arbitrator by filing an Execution Petition before the concerned Court in the year 2021. Since 2021, it transpires that the execution proceedings are dragged on one score or the other by the judgment debtors by filing multiple applications. Be that as it may. 4. What drives the judgment debtors to this Court, at this juncture, is the impugned order. 5. The impugned order is the product of an application filed by the respondent - decree holder to bring in the change of the name of the company not the entity. The concerned Court allows the application on the score that the change of the name of the company was necessary, as all the documents of such change was placed by the judgment debtors before it for an order to be passed, which is now impugned in the subject petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38465 WP No. 19713 of 2025 6. Learned counsel appearing for the judgment debtors submits that the Apex Court in its recent judgment holds that a non-signatory to the Arbitration, cannot be drawn into the execution proceedings and therefore, the order is bad in law. Barring this, he has no other submission to make on the issue that is projected before the Court. 7. Contrariwise, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the judgment debtors are wanting to evade the execution of the proceedings, as the proceedings before the Executing Court is now 4 years old. It is dragged at nostril by filing of plethora of applications. 8. Learned counsel submits that the name of the company is changed and not the entity and what the application projected was only the name of the company and the present petition is preferred after one year of the order that is passed on 19.03.2024, permitting the change the name of the company, only to drag the proceedings. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38465 WP No. 19713 of 2025 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 10. Before considering the issue on its merit, I deem it appropriate to notice what the Apex Court has held in the case of RAHUL S. SHAH V. JINENDRA KUMAR GANDHI reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418: “42. All courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily follow the below mentioned directions: 42.1. In suits relating to delivery of possession, the court must examine the parties to the suit under Order 10 in relation to third-party interest and further exercise the power under Order 11 Rule 14 asking parties to disclose and produce documents, upon oath, which are in possession of the parties including declaration pertaining to third-party interest in such properties. 42.2. In appropriate cases, where the possession is not in dispute and not a question of fact for adjudication before the court, the court may appoint Commissioner to assess the accurate description and status of the property. 42.3. After examination of parties under Order 10 or production of documents under Order 11 or receipt of Commission report, the court must add all necessary or proper parties to the suit, so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and also make such joinder of cause of action in the same suit. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38465 WP No. 19713 of 2025 42.4. Under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC, a Court Receiver can be appointed to monitor the status of the property in question as custodia legis for proper adjudication of the matter. 42.5. The court must, before passing the decree, pertaining to delivery of possession of a property ensure that the decree is unambiguous so as to not only contain clear description of the property but also having regard to the status of the property. 42.6. In a money suit, the court must invariably resort to Order 21 Rule 11, ensuring immediate execution of decree for payment of money on oral application. 42.7. In a suit for payment of money, before settlement of issues, the defendant may be required to disclose his assets on oath, to the extent that he is being made liable in a suit. The court may further, at any stage, in appropriate cases during the pendency of suit, using powers under Section 151 CPC, demand security to ensure satisfaction of any decree. 42.8. The court exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order 21 CPC, must not issue notice on an application of third party claiming rights in a mechanical manner. Further, the court should refrain from entertaining any such application(s) that has already been considered by the court while adjudicating the suit or which raises any such issue which otherwise could have been raised and determined during adjudication of suit if due diligence was exercised by the applicant. 42.9. The court should allow taking of evidence during the execution proceedings only in exceptional and rare cases where the question of fact could not be decided by resorting to any other expeditious method like appointment of Commissioner or calling for electronic materials including photographs or video with affidavits. 42.10. The court must in appropriate cases where it finds the objection or resistance or claim to be frivolous or mala fide, resort to sub-rule (2) of Rule 98 of Order - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38465 WP No. 19713 of 2025 21 as well as grant compensatory costs in accordance with Section 35-A. 42.11. Under Section 60 CPC the term “… in name of the judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf” should be read liberally to incorporate any other person from whom he may have the ability to derive share, profit or property. 42.12. The executing court must dispose of the execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay. 42.13. The executing court may on satisfaction of the fact that it is not possible to execute the decree without police assistance, direct the police station concerned to provide police assistance to such officials who are working towards execution of the decree. Further, in case an offence against the public servant while discharging his duties is brought to the knowledge of the court, the same must be dealt with stringently in accordance with law. 42.14. The Judicial Academies must prepare manuals and ensure continuous training through appropriate mediums to the court personnel/staff executing the warrants, carrying out attachment and sale and any other official duties for executing orders issued by the executing courts.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. The Apex Court provides certain directions for disposal of the execution proceedings, including that the execution proceedings should be closed within six months and can only be extended by recording reasons in writing, for such delay. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38465 WP No. 19713 of 2025 12. The execution proceedings, for the execution of the arbitral award of the year 2016 is still pending till the year 2025, would only show an appalling situation. The reason ostensibly is filing of plethora of applications by the judgment debtors and then when all the applications fail, the judgment debtors come up with the subject novel idea of the change of the name of the company. The learned counsel for the petitioners - judgment debtors, however, submits that the change of the name of the company comes about during the pendency of the proceedings itself. Be that as it may. 13. The change of the name of the company is what was prayed in the application filed by the decree holder. The concerned Court allows the application by the following order: "DHR counsel present. JDR absent. No. representation. Considering the certificate of incorporating produced by DHR along with IA.11, IA.11 filed by DHR seeking amendment of JDR company name is allowed. DHR to carry out the amendments in the cause title. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38465 WP No. 19713 of 2025 PF paid. Issue cause notice to JDR to the present address as mentioned in PF memo. Returnable by 22.04.2024. Later JDR counsel present and filed revised synopsis along with revised index. Call on 22.04.2024." (Emphasis added) 14. Though the order does not contain any reason to do so, it need not contain any reason to do so, as it was only a change of the name of the company and not the entity. The judgment debtors are still wanting to defeat the closure of the execution by filing the subject petition, seeking the interim order of stay. Therefore, it is a case where the petition deserves to be dismissed. 15. Reliance placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court is distinguishable without much ado, as in the case at hand, it is not new impleading applicants who are brought into the execution proceedings by the decree holder, but it is only the change of name. The erstwhile name of the present petitioners are the signatories to the arbitration proceedings, it is not the change of entity or taking over of the entity by - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38465 WP No. 19713 of 2025 someone else, it is only a change of name. Therefore, the said judgment learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks to place reliance upon, would not become applicable to the facts of the case at hand. Therefore, the case at hand becomes one that ought to meet its dismissal not the dismissal simplicitor, but with imposition of costs of Rs.50,000/- for having wanting to stall the execution by filing subject petition, seeking an interim order. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to the respondent. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52 CT:BHK