Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
D. K. SINGH
Rangarajan Narayanan – Appellant
Versus
Quest Global Engineering Services Private Limited – Respondent
ORDER :
D. K. SINGH, J.
The present two writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been filed impugning the interim order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the LXXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Commercial Court), Bengaluru in Com.A.P. No.127/2024. The petitioner in writ petition No.4362/2025 is a decree holder in Arbitral Award dated 13.04.2024 vide modified Arbitral Award dated 24.05.2024. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.8493/2025 is the judgment debtor of the said award.
2. By the impugned order, the learned Commercial Court has directed the judgment debtor to deposit 75% of the award amount in the Court or the equivalent bank guarantee and subject to such deposit, the award has been stayed.
3. The Learned senior counsel Sri Harish Narasappa B., appearing in W.P. No.4362/2025 submits that the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 35 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for execution of the award in as much as the impugned order has not been complied with by the judgment debtor and the said execution proceedings are pending.
4. He further submits that if this Court directs the Commercial Court for expeditious disposal of Section 34 peti
Adherence to timelines for resolution of arbitration disputes, allowing parties to seek modifications or clarifications as required.
The court held that arbitration awards must be enforced without delay, stressing the executing court's duty to assess compliance, even amidst pending appeals, unless a stay is explicitly granted.
The execution of an arbitral award may proceed despite pending appeals unless a stay is expressly granted; writ jurisdiction is not an avenue for private arbitration disputes absent substantial legal....
The court upheld that a stay of an arbitral award requires a reasonable security deposit, and statutory bars apply to revision applications against interlocutory orders in commercial matters.
The court's decision was influenced by the consideration of the deposit of the decretal amount before the Executing Court and the pending interim application before the concerned Commercial Court.
Points of Law : Article 226 and 227 should be extremely circumspect in interfering with orders passed under Arbitration Act, such interference being only in cases of exceptional rarity or cases which....
Court emphasizes equity in execution of arbitral awards under challenge, mandating expedited resolution of related petitions while staying execution proceedings.
Execution of an arbitral award requires compliance with the 90-day limitation under Section 34; execution petitions filed before this period are impermissible.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
