- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17983 WP No. 10086 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 10086 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: M/S IE INFRA PVT LTD., A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING OFFICE AT NO.17, NEW KALIDASA ROAD, V V MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR &PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAVEEN G.S., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. BRAHMI CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17983 WP No. 10086 of 2026 HAVING OFFICE AT NO.552, 13TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN, RMV 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 094 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR &RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2026 PASSED BY THE LXXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-84) IN COM.AP.33/2026 THE ARBITRATOR PRODUCED ANNX-K THEREBY GRANTING AN UNCONDITIONAL STAY OF OPERATION OF AWARD DATED 26.11.2025 IN AC NO.665/2022 PRODUCED AT ANNX-H. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17983 WP No. 10086 of 2026 ORAL ORDER The petitioner, being aggrieved by the money award/decree passed by the learned Arbitrator, has instituted proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, <the Act=) in Com.A.P.No.33/2026 before the jurisdictional Commercial Court. In the said proceedings, the petitioner has also filed an interlocutory application under Section 36(2) of the Act seeking stay of the operation and enforcement of the arbitral award. The Commercial Court, upon consideration of the material on record and the nature of the award, while exercising its judicial discretion, has formed an opinion that though the petitioner is entitled to an order of interim protection, such relief cannot be granted unconditionally. Consequently, by the impugned order, the Commercial Court has directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the award amount within a period of fifteen (15) days as a condition precedent for grant of stay. The said - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17983 WP No. 10086 of 2026 conditional order is called in question in the present writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition, vehemently contends that the arbitral award suffers from patent perversity and is vitiated by serious legal infirmities. It is submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Arbitrator are not supported by any cogent evidence and are contrary to the documents placed on record by the original claimant. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon9ble Apex Court in Lifestyle Equities C.V. vs. Amazon Technologies Inc.1, it is contended that in cases where the award is ex facie perverse and suffers from patent illegality, the Court is justified in granting an unconditional stay without imposing onerous conditions. On these grounds, it is argued that the Commercial Court has erred in directing deposit of 50% of the award amount and that the impugned order warrants interference. 1 2025 SCC Online SC 2153 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17983 WP No. 10086 of 2026 3. Having given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court is not inclined to accede to the principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited and supervisory in nature. This Court does not sit in appeal over the discretionary orders passed by the Courts below. If the Commercial Court, upon consideration of the arbitral award and the grounds urged in the application under Section 36(2) of the Act, has exercised its discretion in imposing a condition while granting stay, this Court would be slow to interfere with such exercise of discretion unless the same is shown to be arbitrary or perverse. 4. In the present case, the Commercial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously and has not found the case to be fit for grant of an unconditional stay. Therefore, the discretion so exercised does not call for interference. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17983 WP No. 10086 of 2026 5. However, this Court finds substance in the contention of the petitioner insofar as the timeline stipulated by the Commercial Court for compliance of the condition is concerned. Directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the award amount within a short period of fifteen (15) days appears to be unreasonable and onerous, particularly when such condition is imposed as a prerequisite for continuation of interim protection. The object of granting an interim order would stand defeated if the condition imposed is incapable of reasonable compliance. The Commercial Court, while imposing such condition, ought to have granted reasonable time to enable the petitioner to comply with the same. Further, it is relevant to note that the original claimant has not yet been served with notice in the present proceedings. Therefore, without disturbing the discretion exercised by the Commercial Court in imposing the condition, this Court deems it appropriate to modify the timeline granted for compliance. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17983 WP No. 10086 of 2026 6. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition deserves to be allowed in part, limited to modification of the time granted for deposit. ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed in part. ii. The petitioner shall deposit 50% of the award amount within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. iii. In all other respects, the order passed by the Commercial Court stands unaltered. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19