Petitioner 3 Karnataka Housing Board a statutory

authority seeks to lay a challenge to the order dated

16.01.2016 (Annexure-L) issued by the Court below in

Execution Case No. 11/2016 whereby apart from attaching

the properties in question, a direction has been issued

restraining their alienation. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing

for the petitioner vehemently argues that when the very

award itself is unsustainable and a challenge is laid thereto,

impugned action could not have been taken. He submits

that the respondent award holder company having been

struck off by the Registrar of Companies, the arbitration

proceedings could not have been taken up. He also notifies

to the court the interim stay of award granted by the

Commercial Court below.

3

2. After service of notice, the respondent-awardee

having entered appearance through its counsel opposes the

petition making submission in justification of the impugned

order and the reasons on which it has been constructed. He

also contends that, the award is already put in challenge

and stay of further proceedings having been obtained, the

Writ Petition is misconceived. So contending, he seeks

dismissal of the Writ Petition.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

having perused the petition papers, this Court declines

indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the

submission made on behalf of the respondent. As already

mentioned above, petitioner9s challenge to the award is

very much pending before the Commercial Court u/s 34 of

the Arbitration and Conciliation, Act 1996 and stay of

further proceedings has also been obtained. In the

meanwhile, Attachment Order has been made in the

execution process, is true. Such an order protects both the

4

sides and therefore voiding it would not serve the cause of

justice.

4. The contention that the award is prima facie not

sustainable inasmuch as, the respondent 3 Company is not

in existence as a legal person, the same having been struck

off from the Register, need not be treated by this Court

since, admittedly such a contention is taken up for voiding

the award in question in a proceeding filed under Section

34 of the 1996 Act and thus, the matter is sub judice is

there. Quashing the impugned order on the pleaded

ground virtually amounts to allowing the challenge to the

award itself and therefore, that cannot be done.

5.

The vehement submission of learned counsel for

the petitioner that the impugned order would affect the

interest of the allottees, the subject sites/structures

having already been allotted to them, is too feeble a ground

for setting aside the impugned order which has only the

5

effect of attachment & restraint of alienation. It is more in

the nature of a status quo order subject to, outcome of the

challenge to the award pending before the Commercial

Court.

In the above circumstances, petition being devoid of

merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, costs

having been made easy.

A request is made to learned judge of the Court below

to try & dispose off the challenge to the award in question

within an outer limit of six months, all contentions having

been kept open.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Snb/Bsv