Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 8060
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Pradeep Singh Yerur, J
ABDUL RASHEED – Appellant
Versus
UM PROJECTS LLP – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 3014 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Sreevatsa, Irfana Nazeer, Sharavan Madhav K. P.
For the Respondents: Pradeep Nayak, Y. Sankeerth Vittal
Under Order XXI Rule 41 of the CPC, officers of a judgment-debtor corporation can be examined and required to file affidavits of assets; however, an arrest warrant for non-compliance may be set aside if the officer appears and is granted an opportunity to comply with the court's directions.
Headnote:The matter pertains to the interpretation of Order XXI Rule 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the execution of an award against a corporate entity. The decree holder initiated execution proceedings against a company, and following the refusal of notice by a director and shareholder, the executing court issued an arrest warrant. The petitioner challenged the warrant on the grounds that he was not a party to the original arbitral award or the execution petition. The primary issue is whether an arrest warrant can be issued against an officer of a judgment-debtor corporation who is not a party to the decree. The court reasoned that under Order XXI Rule 41(1)(b), any officer of a corporation may be orally examined regarding the assets of the judgment-debtor, and under Rule 41(3), disobedience of an order to file an affidavit of assets can lead to detention in civil prison. However, the court observed that since the petitioner had appeared before the High Court, he should be given an opportunity to comply with the requirements of the executing court. The petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 27.01.2026 insofar as issuance of arrest warrant as against the petitioner Mr.Abdul Rasheed is hereby set aside.
THIS W.P. IS FILED PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE EXECUTING COURT DTD. 27.01.2026 IN COM.EX.NO. 686 OF 2024 AND GRANT SUCH OTHER OR FURTHER RELIEFS OR RELIEFS AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned senior counsel Sri.S.Sreevatsa on behalf of learned counsel Smt.Irfana Nazeer for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri. Y.Sankeerth Vittal along with the learned counsel Sri.Pradeep Nayak for the caveator/respondent.
This petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the shareholder and director of Godalphine India Private Limited. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent/decree holder obtained an award against the company, namely Godalphine India Private Limited, and in pursuance of the same, the respondent/decree holder has initiated execution proceedings to realize the fruits of the award. Accordingly, a notice was taken out to the petitioner which was sent to his address in Gujarat, which was returned as refused. Accordingly, in view of the refusal of notice, a warrant was issued by the executing Court under Order 21 Rule 37(2) of CPC as against said refusal.
It is contended by the learned senior counsel Sri.S.Sreevatsa for the petitioner that the learned executing Court accepted the refusal of notice and in view of the fact that the assets of the company were not disclosed, got issued a warrant of arrest against the petitioner who was not a party in the award or in the execution petition. Therefore, it is the grievance of the petitioner that since he was not a party in the arbitral tribunal or the award or the execution petition, there could not have been an arrest warrant issued against him, under Order XXI Rule 37(2) of CPC. Therefore, he is before this Court being aggrieved by the issuance of the arrest warrant against him as he is neither a party nor was he notified prior to the arrest warrant being issued.
Several contentions are raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner with regard to the procedure that ought to have been followed by the Executing Court against a party who is not arrayed before the tribunal or in the execution petition and straightaway the arrest warrant having been issued against him would not be sustainable. He contends that whether the petitioner is a director or a shareholder, once he is not made a party and an order is passed against the company, it would be for the decree holder to get issued a notice to the officers of the company to secure assets of the company to proceed further in pursuance of the award, which is not done in the present case. Therefore, he is aggrieved by the issuance of the arrest warrant. Hence, he seeks to allow his petition and consequently, set aside the order of the execution of issuance of an arrest warrant against him.
Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Pradeep Naik appearing for the respondent, contends that this Court on an earlier occasion disposed of the WP.No. 32031/2025 C/W WP.No.36114/2025, WP.No.36119/2025 by passing the following order:
i) These writ petitions are allowed.
ii) The impugned orders passed by the executing Court dated 30.08.2025 by the LXXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-89), Commercial Court, Bengaluru, in commercial Execution Petition No.686/2024 hereby set aside
iii) Consequently, I.A.No.1/2024, I.A.No.2/2024 and I.A.No.4/2024 deserve to be allowed and accordingly it is allowed.
iv) The executing court shall proceed further by accepting these applications and pass further orders as required. It is also made clear that the executing court shall consider the memo of calculation if any filed by the respondent and the amount if any so deposited by the respondent in the court or to the account of petitioner/DHR and proceed to pass further such order.
v) It is also made clear that,
