IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31^ST 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 SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED Digitally signed by A COMPANY REGISTERED GAVRIBIDANUR UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956 SUBRAMANYA GUPTA HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 70/25, SREENATH

80 FEET CIRCULAR ROAD, Location: HIGH 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)

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. 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 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 also repulsed by the District Court in terms of its order dated 25.01.2024. A further challenge before this Court in