- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29192 WP No. 15843 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAAT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 15843 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. A. NARASIMHAN S/O LATE SRI ARVIND SWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.821 SHOBHA DEW FLOWER APARTMENTS, 4THCROSS ROAD,SARAKKI NAGAR, 1STPHASE J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560078 PRESENTLY, RESIDING AT NO.1109/3, 47THCROSS, 9THMAIN ROAD, 5THBLOCK, NEXT TO ADARSHA PALACE JAYANAGARA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. H.S. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. CHITHRA PANICKER PROPRIETRIX OF MODERN SYMBIOSIS GREEN VENTURE AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O SRI SUNIL PANICKER RESIDING AT “SUNNY” 8THMAIN,6THCROSS, G M PALYA,TIPPASANDRA POST, BENGALURU – 560075 2. SRI SUNIL PANICKER S/O LATE DAMODAR PANICKER Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29192 WP No. 15843 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT “SUNNY” 8THMAIN,6THCROSS, G M PALYA,TIPPASANDRA POST, BENGALURU-560075 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. BHUVAN K.P., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASHING THE ORDER DATED 08/05/2026, PASSED ON IA NO. 2 IN COM.A.P. NO.01/2026 BY THE LEARNED LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT), BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE -A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE I. A. NO. 2 AS PRAYED AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.2 in Com. A.P.No.01/2026 dated 08.05.2026 by Vacation Judge and XIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed Com.A.P.No.01/2026 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 challenging the ex-parte Arbitral - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29192 WP No. 15843 of 2026 Award dated 05.05.2023 passed in A.C.No.246/2022 by the Arbitrator. The petitioner, who was the respondent before the Arbitrator has filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking to set aside the ex- parte arbitral award dated 05.05.2023. It is the case that the award was passed due to disconnection of utilities, removal of signage, destruction of interiors, and interference by the landlady. Several civil proceedings were initiated between the parties, including O.S No.8028/2015 filed by the petitioner and O.S.No.5183/2016 filed by the landlady. Subsequently, the respondents filed proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in A.A.No.127/2019 seeking interim protection, which came to be disposed on 22.04.2021 on the grounds of limitation and lack of prima facie case. It is the case that the respondents later withdrew Commercial Appeal No.111/2021 and obtained appointment of an Arbitrator in CMP No.271/2021.The High Court had appointed an Arbitrator and left open all contentions including limitation for adjudication by the Arbitrator. It is the case that the arbitral award dated 05.05.2023 came to be passed ex parte without proper notice to the petitioner and without affording - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29192 WP No. 15843 of 2026 a reasonable opportunity to contest the proceedings. The petitioner had specifically pleaded before the Commercial Court that notices issued in the arbitral proceedings were sent to an address from which the petitioner had already vacated much prior to the commencement of the arbitral proceedings. Therefore, the postal covers were returned with endorsements such as “addressee left” and “left without instructions”. The petitioner, despite knowledge of various litigations pending between the parties and despite being aware of the advocates who had represented the petitioner in earlier proceedings, no genuine effort was made either by the respondents or by the Arbitrator to secure effective service upon the petitioner. Instead, substantive service through newspaper publication was resorted to and the petitioner had absolutely no knowledge regarding such a publication or the arbitral proceedings. He has also stated that no signed copy of the arbitral award as contemplated under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was ever delivered or served upon him. He came to know about the arbitral award during the first week of May 2026 when sale proclamation notice in Com.Ex.No.308/2023 came to be affixed to his - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29192 WP No. 15843 of 2026 property situated at Alahalli Village. Uttarahalli, Bengaluru. Immediately, the petitioner contacted his advocate, obtained certified copies dated 04.05.2026 and without any delay instituted Com.A.P.No.1/2026 along with application seeking condonation of delay and stay of execution proceedings. The sale proclamation dated 27.04.2026 had already been issued fixed spot sale on 10.06.2026 and Court auction sale on 12.06.2026. Hence, the petitioner specifically pleaded before the Commercial Court that unless such an interim protection is granted, irreversible third-party rights would be created and the entire Section 34 proceedings would become infructuous. In spite of the grave urgency and imminent threat of auction sale, the Commercial Court by the impugned order mechanically declined to grant even temporary ad-interim protection and merely directed issuance of emergent notice observing thatwithout hearing other side, it will not be proper to pass ex-parte order on the application. Hence, petitioner is before this Court. 3. Sri D.R Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that an ex- parte award was passed and the petitioner immediately after - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29192 WP No. 15843 of 2026 coming to know about the same has moved the Court and also sought the stay of the execution. It is submitted that if the petitioner is successful in Com.A.P.No.01/2026 and the property is sold, third party rights will accrue and it will cause lot of prejudice to the plaintiff. Hence, the Court ought to have considered the application that is filed by the petitioner. Learned senior counsel has argued at length and submits that in the interest of justice warrant of attachment may not interfered. However, the Court may stall the auction, or otherwise it will cause lot of prejudice to the petitioner. 4. Sri Uday Holla, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner is very much aware of the proceedings that are initiated. In fact, when an Arbitrator is appointed by the Court, he was represented before this Court. Further, there are several other proceedings pending between the parties and the petitioner is contesting the same. He has intentionally failed to appear before the Arbitrator and when the property is sought to be auctioned has come before the Court. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for any interim relief and in fact, the matter is coming up before the trial - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29192 WP No. 15843 of 2026 court and the petitioner can contest the matter before the Court. He has relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of International Seaport Dredging Private Limited Vs. Kamarajar Port Limited1, he relied on paragraph Nos.17 and 18 which read as follows: “17. Bearing in mind the above principles, we are of the view that the High Court was in error in not even prima facie considering the fact that apart from the issue of cess, there was an arbitral award in favour of the appellant in regard to other claims as well. Further, the High Court ought not to have based its decision on the condition for the grant of stay on the status of the respondent as a statutory authority. The Arbitration Act is a self-contained code – it does not distinguish between governmental and private entities. Hence, the decision of the Court cannot be influenced by the position of the party before it and whether it is a fly-by- night operator. Moreover, an assessment as to whether a party is reliable or trustworthy is subjective. Many private entities, too, may rely on the size of their undertaking, its success, public image, or other factors to argue that they are not fly-by-night operators. In the absence of any provision of law in this regard, it would be inappropriate for courts to apply this standard while adjudicating the conditions upon which a stay of an award may be granted. 18. Similarly, the form of security required to be furnished should not depend on whether a party is a statutory or other governmental body or a private entity. Governmental entities must be treated in a similar fashion to private parties insofar as proceedings under the Arbitration Act are concerned, except where otherwise 1 (2024) 19 SCC 289 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29192 WP No. 15843 of 2026 indicated by law. This is because the parties have entered into commercial transactions with full awareness of the implications of compliance and non-compliance with the concerned contracts and the consequences which will visit them in law. Hence, the argument that the High Court was correct in directing the respondent to furnish bank guarantees in relation to the amount awarded because it is a statutory body is rejected.” He relied on order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of V.L.C.C. Health Care Ltd Vs. Y. Divakar and others2. He has relied on paragraph Nos.11, 12 and 13 which read as follows: “11. In the light of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court what would unmistakably emerge is, the award holder is entitled to the amount of award as directed by the learned Arbitrator in the arbitral award. If that has to be stayed at the instance of award debtor, deposit should be at 100%. It cannot be in piecemeal and the award holder is empowered to withdraw the same by furnishing solvent security. This is the purport of the orders passed by the Apex Court from time to time. If the plea of the petitioner is accepted that `40,00,000/- would be by cash which would form close to ¼ of the award amount and remainder by way of Bank guarantee, it would run foul of the orders passed by the Apex Court, as the Apex Court clearly observes that the award holder should be entitled to withdraw the deposit amount by furnishing solvent security. 12. Therefore, the order passed by the concerned Court directing deposit of 100% of the amount is in tune with what the Apex Court has directed in the aforesaid orders. Therefore, there is no warrant for interference with the order passed by the concerned Court. In the light of the issue being pending before this Court all these days, I 2 W.P.No.21987/2022 (GM-RES) - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29192 WP No. 15843 of 2026 deem it appropriate to extend the time for deposit of 100% of the award amount by 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. For all the aforesaid reasons and observations, the petition stands dismissed.” Learned Senior counsel has relied on judgment in Union of India Vs. Popular Construction C.3. Relying on these judgments submits that the proceedings cannot be stayed unless a part of the amount is deposited before the Court. 5. Having heard the learned Senior Counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The petitioner has questioned ex-parte order before the trial Court and also sought stay of execution proceedings, which was not granted by the trial court. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in several judgments and considering the fact that there is an award and also considering the litigations between the parties, this Court has specifically asked the petitioner if he is ready to deposit the money, then this Court will consider the application and the matter was passed over. In the afternoon it is submitted that, the petitioner is not in a position to deposit any amount. In these circumstances, this 3 (2001) 8 SCC 470 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29192 WP No. 15843 of 2026 Court cannot grant any interim direction. The matter is pending before the trial Court and the petitioner can pursue the same before the trial Court. 6. Hence, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. This court has not expressed anything on the merits of the matter. Any of the observations that are made in this writ petition shall not be construed as an expression of this Court. iii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 70