Karnataka High Court
M/S Ashritha House Building Co … vs Sri P D Chandrakanth on 20 February, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 34190 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S. ASHRITHA HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (REGD.,)
REGD. UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES
REGISTRATION ACT, 1961
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 12 AND 13,
1ST FLOOR, SUMANA COMPLEX,
SHALIVAHANA ROAD, NAZARBAD,
MYSURU - 570 010
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT -
SRI. HONNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by S/O LATE. KEMPEGOWDA
SHARADAVANI
B
Location: High
...PETITIONER
Court of
Karnataka
(BY SRI. N.G. SREEDHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. P.D. CHANDRAKANTH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O LATE. P. DODDAPPAGOWDA,
RESIDING AT NO.202, AASHIANA APARTMENT,
NO.47/10, 6TH 'A' CROSS,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
SADASHIVANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 080.
2. SRI. A. PUSHPARAJA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
S/O SRI. JAGANNATHA SHETTY,
RESIDING AT NO.603, S.L.R. MANSION,
1ST BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 079.
3. MR. A.R. ABDUL RAZAK,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O MR. S. ABDUL RAHEEM,
RESIDING AT NO.42,
9TH 'B' MAIN ROAD, LIC COLONY,
JEEVAN BHEEMA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 075.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED.16/10/2025 (ANNEXURE-G) ON I.A.NO.2 IN COM. EXE
PET. NO.654/2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXXXIV ADDL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-85)
(COMMERCIAL COURT) AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL UNJUST AND
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND CONSEQUENTIALLY TO DISMISS IA
NO. 2 DTD 14.08.2025 ANNX-D FILED BY THE R-3 IN COM EXE
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
NO.654/2023 BEFORE THE HON BLE LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-85)
(COMMERCIAL COURT), WITH DIRECTIONS TO COMPLETE THE
EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS WITHIN SUCH TIME AS MAY BE
FIXED BY THIS HON BLE COURT AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition by the decree holder in Commercial
Execution No.654/2023 is directed against the impugned order
dated 16.10.2025 passed on I.A.No.2, whereby the said
application filed by respondent No.3/JDR No.3 seeking
dismissal of the Execution Petition on the ground of lack/want
of territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the execution
proceedings was allowed by the Commercial Court, which
dismissed the Execution Petition as not maintainable for want
of territorial jurisdiction. The impugned order passed by the
Executing Court reads as under:
“ORDER ON IA No.2
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025HC-KAR
The Applicant/ JDR No.3 has filed present
petition under Section 151 of CPC, seeking to dismiss
the above execution petition as the same is not
maintainable.
2. It is averred in the affidavit of JDR No.3
filed in support of the application that, Decree-holder
had filed a claim petition before Arbitral Tribunal
seeking relief in the form of specific performance for
the assets located in Mysore. This court has no
territorial jurisdiction to try the present matter as the
execution petition ought to have been filed, where
the asset is situated. The decree cannot be executed
in respect of a property, which is situated at Mysore
District. It is further averred that decree-holder has
filed this petition with malicious intention to harass
Judgment debtor with multiple reliefs, despite as per
Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, an application can
be filed only for one relief. It is further averred that
Decree-holder has failed to inform the court as
prayed before the Arbitral Tribunal for specific
performance and filed this petition for attachment of
immovable as well as movable property, which is
outside the scope of the Award. The conduct of
Decree-holder shows that the right of specific
performance is sought to be waived off. The award
granted by tribunal mentions that the agreement can
be executed only against those persons, who had
paid the money to Decree-holder, before institution
of Arbitration and as and when the amount fell due.
In present case the award holder has not furnished
the same before Arbitral Tribunal and this court
being executing court cannot go behind the decree.
Hence award cannot be executed without such claims
being filed before tribunal and an award passed to
that effect. Further nature of reliefs claimed before
this court are different and two different reliefs
cannot be clubbed in single execution petition. The
Decree-holder has failed to provide proper schedule
for execution of the award and description given in
the petition is incorrect. The Decree-holder had to
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
first describe the schedule properties, which are due
for registration and then mention the names of
person who are approved by the tribunal for the
registration of the properties. The Decree-holder has
not produced books of accounts to show that amount
was received before invoking arbitration clause. In
addition to this, in award there is no mention about
the sites for which the sale deeds have to be
executed. These amongst other grounds, it is prayed
to dismiss the execution petition by allowing the
application.
3. The DHR has filed objections to above
application, wherein it is averred that, the application
is highly mischievous by the reason of invalid
grounds and same has been filed at belated stage,
after being unsuccessful to get an order of stay
before Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in
Com.Appeal No.318/2025. The award sought to be
enforced in this case has been passed in Arbitration
Case No.196/2019 was initiated and conducted in
Bengaluru City at Karntaka Arbitration Center, Kanija
Bhavan Bengaluru. Therefore the seat of arbitration
is Bengaluru and this court has jurisdiction to
execute the award, notwithstanding that the
schedule property is situated in the City of Mysore.
Further Judgment debtor No.3 had preferred
application under Sec.34 of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act before Commercial Court Bengaluru
in Com.AP No.194/2023 and now he is estopped
from contending that, this court has no territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition.
Decree-holder society had taken all precautions to
abide by direction in the award and accordingly as
complied the same before filing this petition, by
enclosing proof of documents. The award clearly
mandates that Judgment debtor No.3 will have to
join Judgment debtor Nos.1 and 2 in respect of
remaining sites in favour of members of Decree-
holder society, thereby covering any contingencies in
the manner that whether such sites are yet to be
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
allotted or already been allotted by Decree-holder
society. Therefore the details of said remaining sites,
which are admittedly 37 sites are not mentioned in
the award. However these sites are within the scope
and comprehension of the released orders by MUDA,
according to which, the execution petition clearly
bears details of all the remaining 37 sites, properly
and correctly, under the schedule of immovable
property described in this petition.
4. It is further averred that, Decree-holder
society, in above execution petition has chosen
option No.3 as the relief sought for in above
execution petition and as such Decree-holder has not
sought multiple reliefs in above case. Accordingly the
chosen relief is marked in bold, italics and underlined
letters. Decreeholder society was supposed to make
intimation first within a period of 45 days to the
Judgment debtors for getting the sale deeds
executed in favour of it’s members. The society was
supposed to secure the sale deeds within 60 days
and there is no necessity of making payments by the
Decree-holder to Judgment debtors unless and until
they come forward to execute registered sale deeds.
Accordingly intimations have been made by Decree-
holder to Judgment debtors not only in respect of
balance payments to be made as per the award, also
about calling them for execution of registration vide
letter dtd.09.10.2023. The proof of service of said
letter is filed in the petition, now present application
is filed with malafide intention to protract and to
harass the members of Decree-holder society, which
is evident from invalid nature of grounds. The IA is
liable to be dismissed and Decree-holder will be put
to irreparable loss and hardship, if same is allowed.
These amongst other grounds, it is prayed to dismiss
the application.
5. The following points arise for consideration:
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025HC-KAR
1. Whether Judgment-debtor No.3
has made out grounds to dismiss the
execution petition, as prayed for in the
application?
2. What order or decree?
6. Heard arguments of both sides, perused
records.
7. The followings are answers to above:
Point No.1:- In the Affirmative.
Point No.2:- As per the final Order
for the following;
REASONS
8. POINT No.1:- The Decree holder has filed
present execution petition seeking direction against
Judgment debtor Nos.1 to 3 to execute and register
sale deeds for remaining 37 sites mentioned in
petition schedule property in pursuant to award
passed by Learned Sole Arbitrator in AC
No.196/2019 and in case Judgment debtors failed to
do so, to execute and register sale deeds in favour of
said 37 members of Decree-holder society named in
schedule of the petition, through the process of
court. In support of present petition, the counsel for
Decreeholder society has produced the award passed
in aforesaid arbitration case and operating portion of
award reads as follows:-
(a) Claim petition is allowed as under:-
i. Third Respondent to execute sale deeds
along with Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the
remaining sites in favour of the members of the
Claimant society, in whose favour sites will be
allotted or have already been allotted by the
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025HC-KAR
Claimant society, within 60 (sixty) days from today
without fail.
ii. The Claimant shall pay to the Respondents a
consideration at the rate of Rs.620/- per sq.ft., in
respect of the remaining area to be conveyed and
this amount shall be paid as their respective share of
27.48% for Respondent No.1 Mr. Chandrakant,
31.75% for Respondent No.2 Mr. Pushparaj Shetty
and 40.77% for Respondent No.3 Mr. Abdul Razak
respectively.
iii. The Claimant shall intimate the
Respondents the date on which it will be ready for
getting the sale deeds executed in favour of its
members, within 45 days from today and thereafter
the Respondents to execute the same, failing which
the Claimant can get the sale deeds executed
through the assistance of the Executing Court.
iv. The 3rd Respondent shall pay a sum of
Rs.10 Lakhs to the Claimant as towards Legal
Expenses and Miscellaneous Expenses under Section
31A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
v. Claimant has paid Arbitrator’s fee,
Administrative and Miscellaneous expenses of this
Centre as it share and the same is liable to be borne
by the 3rd Respondent in respect of which the Centre
shall furnish a memo containing the details of the
amounts paid by the Claimant towards Arbitrator’s
fee, Administrative and Miscellaneous expenses of
the Centre.
vi. Counter claims raised by the 3rd
Respondent stand rejected.
Vii. The stamp duty is payable as per
Karnataka Stamp Act.
9. Now when the matter is set down for
hearing on the question of liability of Decree-holder
to deposit the amount as per aforesaid award,
Judgment debtor no.3 has come up with present
application seeking to dismiss the petition on
aforesaid various grounds.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
10. As far as initial ground with regard to
claiming multiple reliefs in above execution petition
is concerned, the counsel for Decree-holder has
drawn attention of this court with regard to the
prayer column of petition, wherein prayer No.3 has
been highlighted in bold, italic and underline font
seeking to direct Judgment debtors to execute and
register sale deeds for remaining 37 sites of schedule
property in pursuant to above award and as such
question of claiming multiple reliefs under present
petition does not arise and said objections raised by
Judgment debtor No.3 stands overruled. Further as
far as objection of Judgment debtor with regard to
non mentioning of site numbers in schedule of
petition is concerned, the decree holder has
mentioned site numbers with boundaries along with
names of corresponding member of decree holder
society and it has clearly answered all other quarries
raised by Judgment debtor in it’s objection
statement, which is not challenged by Judgment
debtors by way of rejoinder/reply. Hence the
aforesaid technical aspects raised by Judgment
debtor no.3 in present application cannot be ground
to dismiss the petition.
11. However the main ground urged by
Judgment debtor No.3 is that, the property/sites
mentioned in schedule of execution petition, which is
sought to be registered in favour of members of
Decree-holder society are situated in Mysore District
and as such this court has no jurisdiction to entertain
the petition. On perusal of schedule of the petition, it
shows that the schedule property/sites, which are
part and parcel of residential layout called Ashritha
Nest are situated in land bearing Sy No.181/3,
180/1, 181/2, 182/6, 180/2, 181/1, 182/1, 182/4,
182/5, 365, 182/2 of Hanchya Village, Kasaba Hobli,
Mysore Taluk and it is specifically mentioned that out
of 121 sites of above layout, Judgment debtors are
liable to execute registered sale deed in respect of
37 sites mentioned in the schedule. Hence it is not
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
denied and disputed by both sides that, the above
sites are situated in Mysore Taluk and District.
12. The counsel for Judgment debtor No.3 has
vehemently argued that, this court cannot exercise
it’s executing jurisdiction over the assets, which are
situated outside territorial jurisdiction of the court
and this court is bound by civil procedure code for
execution of award, as there is no other procedure
contemplated under Arbitration Act or Commercial
Courts Act. The said counsel has further relied upon
Sec.39 of CPC and argued that, if a decree directs
the sale or delivery of immovable property situated
outside local limits of jurisdiction of the court which
passed it, such court shall transfer the decree to the
court of competent jurisdiction and said section
expressly bars the jurisdiction of the court to execute
such decree against any person or property outside
its local jurisdiction.
13. On the other hand, counsel for Decree-
holder has vehemently argued that, a commercial
court is authorized to exercise jurisdiction to execute
the decree, when person against whom the decree is
passed or available within local limits of the court. He
has further argued that, as Judgment debtors are
residing in Bengaluru and as they have accepted the
process of the court, there is no reason to oust the
jurisdiction of this court in executing the award
passed by Learned Arbitrator. The said counsel has
further argued that, after termination of arbitration
proceedings by passing award, Judgment debtor
No.3 has admitted himself to the territorial
jurisdiction of this court by preferring an application
under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
1996 in Com.AP No.194/2023, notwithstanding that
the property as well as the Decree-holder situated
outside the limits of this court and the court
exercised its jurisdiction to pass the judgment on
merits by dismissing the said Com.AP No.194/2023,
vide judgment and order dtd.11.03.2025. Hence the
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
conduct of Judgment debtor No.3 estoppes him from
challenging territorial jurisdiction of this court. The
said counsel has further argued that, by virtue of law
envisaged in Sec.42 of Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, there cannot be the two different courts, one for
application under Sec.34 and another for application
under Sec.36 of said act. Further as per Sec.10(3) of
said act, all applications arising out of an arbitration
shall be filed, heard and disposed off by Commercial
Court exercising territorial jurisdiction over such
arbitration, where such Commercial Court has been
constituted and hence in view of above provisions,
this court has got jurisdiction to entertain the
petition.
14. Further the said counsel has relied upon
judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in WP
No.9659/2025 and argued that, an Execution petition
for arbitral awards are maintainable before
Commercial Courts under Sec.10(3) of Commercial
Courts Act. He has relied upon following paras of said
judgment in support of his arguments and same are
culled out as under:-
11…….. The High Court of Gujarat in the
case of ARUN KUMAR JAGATRAMKA v.
ULTRABULK A/S9 has held as follows:
“22. Proceeding to consider the issue on
further merits, the question about jurisdiction of the
Commercial Court to entertain the execution
application has been answered in the reasoning and
ratio of the decisions of the courts. Before the
Division Bench of this Court in OCI Corporation v.
Kandla Export Corporation, [(2017) 1 GLH 383: (AIR
2017 NOC 468 (Guj)], the issue was about transfer
of execution petitions pending before the District
Court, Gandhidham to the appropriate Commercial
Court. It was the contention that the Parliament did
not intend to apply provisions of Commercial Courts
Act, 2015 to the execution of the foreign award
which was sought to be executed in those cases. The
execution proceedings were in relation to the arbitral
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025HC-KAR
award, and the contention was raised for with
reference to the definition of the ‘commercial dispute’
contained in Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts
Act, that it cannot be said that there was any
‘commercial dispute’ pending at the execution stage
in as much as commercial dispute which had arisen
between the parties was already decided and
adjudicated.
23. While summing up the final decision, the
Division Bench inter alia held and directed that,
“Where the subject matter of an arbitration is a
commercial dispute of a specified value and if such
arbitration is other than international arbitration, all
the application or appeals arising out of such
arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall be filed in and heard,
decided and disposed of by the Commercial Court
exercising territorial jurisdiction over such arbitration
where such commercial court has been constituted.”
24. In Vadodara Mahanagar Seva Sadan
formally known as Municipal Corporation v. M.S.
Khurana Engineering Limited, being Special Civil
Application No. 13736 of 2018, the petitioner
Corporation had challenged order of the Commercial
Court in relation to the award of the arbitrator for
which the execution petition was filed before the
Commercial Court. The contention was raised on
behalf of the petitioner that though the application
for setting aside the arbitral award may be pending
before the Commercial Court, the execution petition
of the contractor would not be competent as it was
for the amount below Rs. 1 Crore.
25. The Division Bench stated and observed,
“Section 37 of the CPC pertains to definition of Court
which passed a decree and provides that the
expression “Court which passed a decree”, or words
to that effect, shall, in relation to the execution of
decrees, unless there is anything repugnant in the
subject pr.context, be deemed to include-[a] where,
the decree to be executed has been passed in the
exercise of appellate jurisdiction, the Court of first
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
instance, and [b] where the Court of first instance
has ceased to exist or to have jurisdiction to execute
it, the Court which, if the suit wherein the decree
was passed was instituted at the time of making the
application for the execution of the decree, would
have jurisdiction to try such suit.
Section 38 of the CPC pertains to “Court by
which decree may be executed” and provides that a
decree may be executed either by the Court which
passed it, or by the Court to which it is sent for
execution. In terms of Section 38 of the CPC, thus, a
decree is executable by a Court which passed it.”
26. It was observed that since the award was
enforceable in terms of the Code of the Civil
Procedure in the same manner as it was the decree
of the Court, “the Court having jurisdiction over the
subject matter could be the court competent to
execute it as per the Section 38 of the CPC.” It was
concluded that, “Since in the present case,
jurisdiction of the subject matter which was part of
the arbitration proceedings ordinarily lies with the
Commercial Court and it was because of this reason
that the application for setting aside the arbitral
award was transferred to the Commercial Court, it
was the Commercial Court which was competent to
enforce the arbitral award; as if it were a decree of
that Court.”….
12. On a coalesce of the judgments relied on by the
learned senior counsel for the petitioner and that of
the respondent, the unmistakable inference is, my
respectful agreement with the judgments rendered
by the Division Benches of various High Courts, in
particular, the one that is rendered in ARUN
KUMAR JAGATRAMKA supra which considers
the entire spectrum of law and holds that
Section 10 is clear that execution petition also
can be filed to execute a decree i.e., arbitral
award before the Commercial Court, as the
characteristics of a commercial dispute is not
lost. Same is that of the Division Benches of
– 14 –
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
other High Courts. In the light of unequivocal
elucidation of law and the fact that elucidation
of Gujarat High Court having become final, as
the SLP preferred being dismissed, I deem it
appropriate to follow the same. The
unmistakable inference of all the narrations
hereinabove is that the execution petition
before the Commercial Court would become
entertainable and maintainable. The
submission that they would clog commercial
Courts, as held by the Apex Court in plethora of
judgments; that would not sway the elucidation
of law or out-weigh the elucidation of law the
Division Benches of the several High Courts
quoted supra.
15. On the basis of aforesaid case of Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka counsel for Decree-holder has
vehemently argued that all the applications under
Sec.10(3) of Commercial Courts Act 2015 include
application for execution of arbitral award and as
such this court has got jurisdiction to entertain the
petition. He has further argued that no hardship will
be caused to the process of the court as the physical
presence of an executant of the sale deed on behalf
of Judgment debtors is exempted under Sec.88(i) of
Registration Act 1908 and further this court by
exercising its power under order 21 Rule 34 of CPC
will be appointing the Commissioner to represent the
court before jurisdictional Sub-Registrar for
execution of sale deeds, towards which Judgment
debtors are bound to bear the costs imposed by the
court.
16. However counsel for Judgment debtor No.3 has
relied upon following caselaw of Hon’ble Supreme
Court reported under (2018) 3 SCC 622
between Sundaram Finance Limited Vs Abdul
Samad and another and vehemently argued that,
in view of clear law laid down in above decision, no
court can execute any decree or award in respect of
– 15 –
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
sale or specific performance of any property situated
outside its jurisdiction. The relevant portion is culled
out as under:-
Held: “Some High Courts are of the incorrect
view that transfer of decree should first be obtained
before filing the execution petition before the court
where the assets are located. While other High
Courts are of the correct view that an award is to be
enforced in accordance with the provisions of the
CPC in the same manner as if it were a decree of the
court as per Section 36 of the Act, which does not
imply that the award is a decree of a particular court,
and it is only a fiction. Thus, the award can be
filed for execution before the court where the
assets of the judgment debtor are located.
5.2. Jasvinder Kaur v. Tata Motors Finance Ltd.
2013 SCC OnLine HP 3904 of the High Court of
Himachal Pradesh, Shimla — The learned Single
Judge took note of the fact that the arbitration
proceedings were to be settled in Mumbai in
accordance with the said Act and the award had been
made in Mumbai. Thereafter the learned Single
Judge copiously extracted from the judgment of this
Court in Swastik Gases Private Limited v. Indian Oil
Corporation Limited . (2013) 9 SCC 32 The learned
Judge then proceeded to, once again, copiously
extract from the then prevailing view of the
Karnataka High Court where a learned Single Judge
in ICDS Ltd. v. Mangala Builders (P) Ltd. 2001 SCC
OnLine Kar 153, AIR 2001 Kar 364 had opined in
favour of the aforesaid view.
B. An award is to be enforced in
accordance with the provisions of the said Code
in the same manner as if it were a decree of the
court as per Section 36 of the said Act does not
imply that the award is a decree of a particular
court and it is only a fiction. Thus, the award
can be filed for execution before the court
where the assets of the judgment-debtor are
located.
– 16 –
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
14. We would now like to refer to the
provisions of the said Act, more specifically Section
36(1), which deals with the enforcement of the
award: “36. Enforcement.–(1) Where the time for
making an application to set aside the arbitral award
under Section 34 has expired, then, subject to the
provisions of sub-section (2), such award shall be
enforced in accordance with the provisions of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 to 1908), in the
same manner as if it were a decree of the court.”
The aforesaid provision would show that
an award is to be enforced in accordance with
the provisions of the said Code in the same
manner as if it were a decree. It is, thus, the
enforcement mechanism, which is akin to the
enforcement of a decree but the award itself is
not a decree of the civil court as no decree
whatsoever is passed by the civil court. It is the
Arbitral Tribunal, which renders an award and
the tribunal does not have the power of
execution of a decree. For the purposes of
execution of a decree the award is to be
enforced in the same manner as if it was a
decree under the said Code.
17. Hence as rightly argued by counsel for Judgment
debtor no.3, as per aforesaid caselaw of Hon’ble
Supreme Court, an Execution petition for
enforcement of an award shall be filed before Court,
where the assets of the Judgment debtor are located
and such execution petition can be filed anywhere in
the country without even obtaining a transfer of
decree from Court, which has jurisdiction over
arbitral proceedings/award and within whose
jurisdiction the award is passed. Under such
circumstances the submissions of decree holder that
in view of preferring commercial appeal No.194/2023
by JDr No.3 against impugned award, this Court has
got jurisdiction to execute and enforce aforesaid
Award cannot be accepted. Further in view of ratio
laid down in aforesaid caselaw of Supreme Court, the
– 17 –
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
decree holder society is bound to file execution
petition before Jurisdictional Court of Mysore District
for enforcement of impugned award passed by
Arbitral Tribunal in A.C.No.196/2019 as the petition
properties are situated within territorial jurisdiction
of said district. Hence the present execution petition
is liable to be dismissed for lack of territorial
jurisdiction, with liberty to Decree holder to file the
same before jurisdictional Court of Mysore district,
where the petition schedule properties are situated.
Hence point no.1 is answered in the
affirmative.
18. Point No.2:- For the reasons stated and findings
given on Point No.1, the following is:-
ORDER
IA No.2 filed under Section 151
of CPC by the Applicant/
Judgmentdebtor No.3, is hereby
allowed.
Execution petition is dismissed
for want of Territorial Jurisdiction,
with liberty to Decree holder to file the
same before jurisdictional Court of
Mysuru district, where the petition
schedule properties are situated.
No order as to costs.”
2. As can be seen from the impugned order, the
Commercial Court has come to the conclusion that since the
immovable property, which was the subject matter of Execution
Proceedings, being situated at Mysore and the impugned
Execution Proceedings being filed in Bangalore, the Commercial
Court at Bangalore did not have territorial jurisdiction to
– 18 –
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
adjudicate upon the Execution Proceedings, which would
necessarily have to be filed before the Jurisdictional Court of
Mysore, where the petition schedule properties are situated.
3. In this context, it is pertinent to extract the
schedule to the Execution Petition, which are as under:
“SCHEDULE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of the residential layout called as
“ASHRITHA NEST formed by M/s Ashritha House Building Co-
operative Society (Regd.) in the lands bearing Sy. Nos.181/3 (1
acre), 180/1 (2 acres-10 guntas), 181/2 (1 acre-Igunta), 182/6
(20 guntas), 180/2 (18 guntas), 181/1 (35 guntas), 182/1 (31
guntas), 182/4 (24 guntas), 182/5 (21 guntas), 365 (3 acres 6
guntas), 182/2 (20 guntas) of Hanchya Village, Kasaba Hobli.
Mysuru Taluk, which layout is comprising a total number of 121
sites, out of which, the JDRs herein are liable to execute and
register Sale Deeds in respect of the following 37 sites in favour
of the respective members of the Decree Holder Society:-
Sl. Member’s name SITE SITE DIMENSION Boundaries
No. No.
1 Vinay Kumar.H.S. 116 18.00 mtrs X East: 12 mtrs Road
(8.0+10.85)/2 mtrs West: Site No.115
Total:169.65 Sq. North: Site no 117
mtrs South by: Society’s land2 Sunil.R 108 12.00 mtrs X East: 9 mtrs Road
(8.15+10)/2 mtrs West: Site No.94
Total:108 Sq mtrs North: 9 mtrs Road
South by: Site No.1073 Chandregowda 72 (19.85+16.80)/2 East: Site No.71
mtrs X 24 mtrs West: Road
total:439.80 North: Road
Sq.mtrs South by: Site Nos.73 &
744 Sheela.D.B. 97 12.00 mtrs X East: Site No.108
(6.30+8.15)/2 mtrs West: 9 mtrs Road
Total:86.70Sq mtrs North: 9 mtrs Road
South by: Site No.69
– 19 –
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
5 Gunasundari 48 (17.95_12.35)/2 East: Site No.49
mtrs X 20.70 mtrs West: Road
total 313.64 North: Road
Sq.mtrs South by: Site No.69
6 T.Sunil Kothari 21 9.00 mtrs x East: Site No.22
15.00 mtrs West: Road
total 135 Sq.mtrs North: Road
South by: Site No.28
7 B.V.Poornima 93 9.00 mtrs x East: Site No.92
15.00 mtrs West: Site No.94
total 135 Sq.mtrs North: Site No.80
South by: 9 Mtrs Road
8 N.Lokappa 2 18.00 mtrs x East: 12 mtrs Road
12.00 mtrs West: Private land
Total 216 Sq.mtrs North: Site No.3
South by: Site No.1
9 Raghu D.M. 49 12.00 mtrs X East: Site No.50
(19+19.50)/2 mtrs West: Site No.48
Total 23 Sq.Mtrs North: 9 mtrs Road
South by: Private Land
10 S.M.Shadaksharaiah 31 (16.55+13.45)/2 East: Private Land
mtrs X 18.00 mtrs West: Site No.32
Total 270 Sq.mtrs North: Site Nos.30&29
South by: 9 mtrs Road
11 K.V.Mahendra 87 (8.20+10.50)/2 East: Private Land
Prashanth mtrs X 15.00mtrs West: Site No.88
Total 140.25 North: Site No.86
Sq.mtrs South by: Road
12 V.Sneha Bindu 51 12.00 mtrs x East: Site No.52
(20.50+23.45)/2 West: Site No.50
mtrs North: 9 mtrs Road
Total 286.80 South by: Private Land
Sq.mtrs
13 Manjunath.R 52 12.00 mtrs X East: Site No.52
(23.45+24.35)/2 West: Site No.51
mtrs North: 9 mtrs Road
Total 286.80 South by: Private Land
Sq.mtrs
14 Borappa 50 12.00 mtrs X East: Site No.51
(19.5 + 20.5) / 2 West:- Site No.49
mtrs total 240 North: 9 mtrs Road
– 20 –
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
Sq.mtrs South by: Private Land
15 Sneha.S. 96 (12.55+9.05) mtrs East: 9 Mtrs Road
X 15.00 mtrs Total West:- Site No.95
162 Sq.mtrs North: Site No.77
South by: 9mtrs Road
16 Vishwas Manjunath 69 17.50 mtrs X East: Private Land
(21.5+23.30)/2 West:- Road
mtrs Total 380.80 North: Site No.48
Sq. mtrs South by: Road
17 Mohan.C 78 9.00 mtrs X 15.00 East: Site No.79
mtrs Total: 135 West:- Site No.77
Sq.mtrs North: 9 mtrs Road
South by: Site No.95
18 D.Puttaiah 4 18.00 mtrs X East: 12 mtrs Road
12.00 mtrs West:- Private Land
North: Site No.5
Total:216 Sq.mtrs South by: Site No.3
19 Ramegowda K 20 8.65 mtrs X 15.00 East: Road
mtrs Total:129.75 West:- Site No.19
Sq.mtrs North: Road
South by: Site No.38
20 C.N.Shobha 68 (14.55+16.10)/2 East: Site No.67
mtrs X West:- Private Land
24.00 mtrs North: Site Nos.54&53
Total 367.80 South by: 24 mtrs Road
Sq.mtrs
21 Lokesh. N. 29 9.00 mtrs X East: Site No.30
15.00mtrs West:- Site No.298
North: 9 mtrs Road
South by: Site Nos.31
&32
22 B.V. Ragini 77 (6.5 + 9.05) / 2 East: Site No.78
mtrs X West:-12 mtrs Road
15.00mtrs North: Road
Total:116.62 South by: Site No.96
Sq.mtrs
23 Nandini 73 13.5 + 11 )/2 mtrs East: Site No.74
X (18.5 + 19.5) / 2 West:- 12 mtrs Road
mtrs total 232.75 North: Site No.72
Sq.mtrs South by: 9 mtrs wide
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
road
24 Bhagyalakshmi.D.H. 58 13.90 mtrs X East: Site No.59
18.00mtrs West:- Road
Total:250.20 North: Road
Sq.mtrs South by: Site No.64
25 Chandana Raj.M. 38 12.00 mtrs X East: Road
18.00 mtrs West:- Site No.39
Total:216 Sq.mtrs North: Site nos. 19&20
South by: Road
26 Kiran Kumar Shetty 47 (12.10+9.60)/2 East: Site No.46
mtrs X 18.00 mtrs West:- Road
Total:195.30
Sq.mtrs North: Site No.8
South by: Road
27 VIjaya Lakshmi 109 12.00 mtrs X East: Site No.121
(7.15+8.70)/2 mtrs West:-9 mtrs Road
Total 95.01 Sq.mtrs North: 9 mtrs Road
South by: Site No.110
28 R.Preetham 64 19.45 mtrs X East: Site No.63
24.00 mtrs West:-9 mtrs Road
Total:466.80 North: Site Nos. 29&58
Sq.mtrs South by: 24 mtrs Road
29 Shantha.P. 1 18.00 mtrs X East: Road
(20.00+14.50)/2 West:- Private Land
mtrs North: Site No.2
Total: 310.50 South by: Road
Sq.mtrs
30 Kamala 92 9.00 mtrs X 15.00 East: Site No.91
mtrs West:- Site No.93
Total:-135 Sq.mtrs North: Site No.81
South by: 9 mtrs wide
road
31 Siddaraju.C. 8 (9.60+7.90)2 mtrs East: Site No.9
X 15.00 mtrs West:- Road
Total:206.25 North: Road
Sq.mtrs South by: Site No.47
32 Moganna 110 12.00 mtrs X East: Site No.120
9.00 mtrs West:-9 mtrs Road
Total: 108 Sq.mtrs North: Site No.109
South by: Site No.111
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
33 Prapulla.B.R. 106 12.00 mtrs X East: 9 mtrs Road
9.00 mtrs West:- Site No.99
Total:108.00 North: Site No.107
Sq.mtrs South by: Site No.105
34 M.S.Ramesh 76 (15.00 East: Private Land
13.0+30)/2 mtrs West:- Site No.75
X18 mtrs North: Site No.70
Total:348 Sq.mtrs South by: 9 mtrs wide
road
35 Ravikala 37 14.85 mtrs X East: Site No.36
18.00 mtrs West:- Site No.28
Total:267.30 North: Site No.22&23
Sq.mtrs South by: Road
36 H.R.Parvathamma 57 13.10 mtrs X 18.00 East: Road
mtrs Total:235.80 West:- Site No.56
Sq.mtrs North: Road
South by: Site No.65
37 Guruprasad.S. 121 18.00 mtrs X East: 12 mtrs Road
(8.70+11.50)/2 West:- Site No.109
mtrs Total:181.08 North: 9 mtrs wide road
Sq.mtrs South by: Site No.120
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the
petitioner, the impugned order may be set aside and the
impugned Commercial Execution No.654/2023 may be directed
to be transferred to the jurisdictional Commercial Court, at
Mysore with a direction to the parties to appear before the
Commercial Court on a particular date and a direction to the
Commercial Court to dispose of the Execution Proceedings as
expeditiously as possible.
– 23 –
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that in the light of the impugned order which
specifically states that it is the Commercial Court at Mysore
which has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the Execution
proceedings, the impugned order may be set aside and the
impugned Execution Proceedings filed before the Commercial
Court at Bangalore may be directed to be transferred to the
Commercial Court at Mysore for adjudication in accordance with
law.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and the undisputed fact that the execution schedule properties
are situated at Mysore, I deem it just and appropriate to set
aside the impugned order and exercise my jurisdiction and
powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with
Section 24 of CPC and direct Commercial Execution
No.654/2023 to be transferred to the Court of the Jurisdictional
Commercial Court at Mysore by issuing certain directions in this
regard.
7. In the result, the following:
ORDER
– 24 –
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
i) Petition is hereby allowed.
ii) Impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed on
I.A.No.2 in Com.Exe.Pt.No.654/2023 is hereby
set aside.
iii) The registry of the Commercial Court at
Bangalore is directed to transfer Commercial
Execution No.654/2023 from the file of the
Commercial Court at Bangalore to be
transferred to the jurisdictional Commercial
Court at Mysore for adjudication in accordance
with law.
iv) The petitioner and respondents are directed to
appear before the jurisdictional Commercial
Court, at Mysore on 09.03.2026 without further
notice from the Commercial Court, at Mysore.
v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents
to file objections before jurisdictional
Commercial Court at Mysore, which shall
proceed further and dispose of the Execution
Proceedings in accordance with on or before
30.06.2026.
vi) The amount deposited by the petitioner/decree
Holder in Commercial Execution No.654/2023
before the Commercial Court at Bangalore is
– 25 –
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
directed to be transferred/transmitted to the
Jurisdictional Commercial Court at Mysore to
proceed further in accordance with law.
vii) All rival contentions on all aspects of the
matter are kept open and no opinion is
expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival
contentions.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
VM, Sl No.: 5
