Execution petitions for awards must be filed in the jurisdiction where the property is located, as enforced under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and Civil Procedure Code.

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 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 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 Bhav