Karnataka High Court
Mphasis Limited vs M/S Strategic Outsourcing Services ... on 31 October, 2025
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44066
WP No. 19686 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 19686 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MPHASIS LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT 1956
BAGMANE WORLD CENTER,
MARATHALLI RING ROAD,
DODDANAKUNDI VILLAGE
BANGALORE-560 048,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/ VICE PRESIDENT,
MR. SUBRAMANIAN NARAYAN
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DHANANJAY.V.JOSHI, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. KAVITHA DAMODARAN., ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S STRATEGIC OUTSOURCING
Digitally signed SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED
by A COMPANY REGISTERED
GAVRIBIDANUR
SUBRAMANYA UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956
GUPTA HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 70/25,
SREENATH
Location: HIGH 80 FEET CIRCULAR ROAD,
COURT OF KORAMANGALA 4TH BLOCK,
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE- 560 034,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
MR PRADEEP PATIL.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VAMSHI KRISHNA C., ADVOCATE- ABSENT)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44066
WP No. 19686 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER ON I.A. NO.5 DTD. 29.05.2024 (ANNX-A)
PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSION JUDGE (CCH-83) BANGALORE IN COM EX.NO. 19 OF
2020 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER UNDER ORDER XXI RULE 54 OF THE CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS / OR
DIRECTIONS AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND
PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned senior counsel Sri. Dhananjay.V.Joshi on behalf of learned counsel Smt.Kavitha Damodaran for the petitioner.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/decree holder, being aggrieved by the rejection of his application IA.No.5, filed under Order 21 Rule 54 read with Section 145 and Section 151 of CPC in Commercial Execution No.19/2020 passed by LXXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-83), Bengaluru. -3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44066 WP No. 19686 of 2024 HC-KAR
3. It is the contention of the Senior Counsel that the petitioner/decree holder who is the company, initiated the arbitral proceedings in AC No. 51/2019 against the respondent/judgment debtor for recovery of money before the Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitrator passed an award allowing the petitioner's claim together with interest on 26.11.2019. Aggrieved by the said award, respondent/judgment debtor herein filed a petition in Com.A.P.No.37/2020 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the trial court.
4. It is now submitted that the challenge made under Section 34 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act came to be rejected and so also the further challenge under Section 37 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act also came to be dismissed.
5. This being the state of affairs, petitioner/decree holder preferred Commercial Execution petition in Com.Ex.No.19/2020. Since the respondent/judgment -4- NC: 2025:KHC:44066 WP No. 19686 of 2024 HC-KAR debtor did not comply with the order with regard to deposit of the amount as ordered by the Arbitral Tribunal, an application came to be filed by the petitioner/decree holder for attachment of the schedule property under Order 21 Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 145 and Section 151 of the CPC in the Commercial Execution petition No. 19/2020, the trial Court instead of attaching the property ordered that since the property has already been secured by way of an interim order there is no requirement for further attachment of the property and hence refrained from issuing attachment warrant against the immovable property sought for by the petitioner/decree holder.
6. Aggrieved by which the petitioner/decree holder is before this Court. This Court vide order dated 06.11.2024 passed an order which reads us under:
"It is seen that the arbitration proceedings initiated by the petitioner culminated in an award dated 26.11.2019. The challenge to the award was -5- NC: 2025:KHC:44066 WP No. 19686 of 2024 HC-KAR also repulsed by the District Court in terms of its order dated 25.01.2024. A further challenge before this Court in Commercial Appeal No.102/2024, is filed under Section 37of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1996') and no interim orders are passed. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had taken out execution to enforce the award. In the said award, an application was filed to attach the property that was offered by the judgment debtor as security. The Executing Court had rejected the application on the ground that the property was already offered security and that therefore, there is no need to attach the property.
If the judgment debtor has lost the challenge against the award under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 and if there is no interim order granted by this Court in the proceedings under Section 37 of the Act, 1996, the Executing Court ought to have attached the property that was offered as security.
In that view of the matter, until the disposal of this writ petition, the property offered by the judgment debtor as security shall stand attached. The Bommanahalli Sub Register, Jayanagar Registration Office is directed to make an entry in the concerned dispute register that the property offered as security in Comm. Ex. No.19/2020 which is described below is attached in this writ petition.-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:44066 WP No. 19686 of 2024 HC-KAR "All part and parcel of the property / asset bearing old No.10/13 and 11/13, New No.10/11 (PID No. 68-17- 10/11), Venkatappa Layout, Ejipura, Ward No.68, Koramangala Range, Bangalore - 560095, totally measuring 4800 sq.ft. along with a commercial building thereon comprising basement, ground, first, second and third floors standing thereon and bounded on the:
East by: Site No. 12/3,
West by: Site No. 9/13,
North by: Private property, and
South by: Road."
7. This order is not questioned by the
respondent/judgment debtor. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent today before this Court.
8. The provisions of Section 21 Rule 54 read with Section 145 and Section 151 of CPC reads as under:
"Where the property is immovable, the attachment shall be made by an order prohibiting the judgment-debtor from transferring or charging the property in any way, and all persons from taking any benefit from such transfer or charge."-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:44066 WP No. 19686 of 2024 HC-KAR
9. In view of the fact that the trial Court has already ordered for the said property to be secured as a security and thereafter this Court vide interim order dated 06.11.2024 has passed the order as narrated herein above for attachment of the property and the respondent having not challenged this order, the provision contemplates that the attachment is to be ordered under Order XXI Rule 54 read with Section 145 and Section 151 of CPC.
10. Under the circumstances, since the respondent/judgment debtor has failed in the challenge made under Section 34 of the Act and also Section 37 of the Act and has failed to take any order of restraint or prevent the Court from ordering the attachment of the property pursuant to the property being issued as a security. Nothing further survives in this matter except to order the attachment of the property in pursuance of the application filed by the petitioner/decree holder. Under the circumstances, I pass the following order. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC:44066 WP No. 19686 of 2024 HC-KAR ORDER The petition is allowed.
2. The impugned order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the 82nd Additional City Civil Sessions Judge, CCH 83, Bengaluru in Commercial Execution Petition No.19/2020 is hereby set aside and the application is allowed.
3. The application filed under Order 21 Rule 54 read with Section 145 and Section 151 of the CPC seeking attachment of the schedule property mentioned in the Com.Ex.No.19/2020 and also in this petition is ordered to be attached.
4. Interim order is made absolute.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE RCK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1