CAV ORDER

1. These writ petitions are filed by the judgment debtor under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the legality and correctness of the orders dated 01.04.2026 passed by the Commercial Court, Bengaluru, in Com.Ex.No.975/2025 and Com.A.P.No.150/2024, whereby the application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected and a warrant was directed to be issued for attachment of the petitioner’s current accounts and fixed deposit receipts.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Commercial Court.

Background Facts:

3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of these writ petitions, are as follows:

The petitioner/judgment debtor is a Public Sector Undertaking. It was awarded a project, pursuant to which the respondent/decree-holder came to be engaged on a back-to-back contractual basis. The relationship between the parties was governed by a series of contractual documents, namely, the Memorandum of Understanding dated 08.03.2006, the Master Agreement dated 23.04.2006, and subsequent addenda executed thereunder. Under the said arrangements, the respondent—HCL Infosystems Ltd. had undertaken to indemnify certain losses incurred by ITI Ltd.

4. Disputes having arisen between the parties with regard to the entitlement of the respondent, arbitration proceedings were initiated by the respondent by raising its claims. An Arbitrator was appointed under the ICADR Rules, and the proceedings were conducted in Arbitration Case No.56/2017.

5. The arbitral proceedings culminated into an award dated 29.04.2024, which was further modified on 13.07.2024, whereby the claims made by HCL Infosystems Ltd. were partly allowed and the counterclaims made by ITI Ltd. came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner instituted proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Arbitration Act”), in Com.A.P.No.150/2024. In the said proceedings, the petitioner also filed an application under Section 36(2) r/w. Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, seeking stay of the operation of the arbitral award.

6. The Commercial Court, after hearing both parties, disposed of the said application on 19.04.2025 by granting stay of the impugned award subject to deposit of 75% of the award amount, within 60 days. Challenging the said condition, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.18314/2025. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by order dated 07.08.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred SLP (C) No.33133/2025 before the Supreme Court, which also came to be dismissed on 21.11.2025.

7. Thereafter, the respondent/decree-holder filed I.A.No.1 in Com.Ex.No.975/2025 under Order XXI Rule 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”), seeking a direction to the judgment debtor to file an affidavit disclosing its assets, income, liabilities, bank accounts, movable and immovable properties, and all financial interests in Form No.16A, Appendix E of the CPC, and also seeking issuance of warrant for attachment of current accounts. At that stage, the petitioner/judgment debtor filed I.A.No.2 under Section 36(2) of the Arbitration Act r/w. Section 151 of CPC seeking extension/modification of the stay order dated 19.04.2025 by offering an immovable property as security in place of the cash deposit.

8. The Commercial Court, by the impugned common order, allowed the application filed by the respondent/decree-holder and rejected the application filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court.

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner:

9. Sri. Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, urged the following contentions:

(i) First, he contended that, though the petitioner was granted a stay of the arbitral award subject to deposit of 75% of the award amount, as it has been facing serious liquidity constraints, it is unable to comply with the said condition. He submits