Karnataka High Court
M/S Marcadeo Enterprises vs M/S Itw Catalyst Private Limted on 15 July, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:26024
WP No. 17879 of 2025
C/W WP No. 19971 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 17879 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 19971 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
IN WP No. 17879/2025
BETWEEN:
M/S ITW CATALYST PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 2013,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
16/1, 1ST FLOOR, AVS COMPOUND,
80 FEET ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 560 034.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED
Digitally signed REPRESENTATIVE
by NAGAVENI
MR. THOMAS JOSEPH.
Location: High
Court of ...PETITIONER
Karnataka (BY SRI S.KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S. MARCADEO ENTERPRISES,
A PARTNERSHIP REGISTERED UNDER
THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1931,
HAVING OFFICE AT 127/1/26, W-1
SAKET NAGAR, KANPUR
UTTAR PRADESH - 208 014
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:26024
WP No. 17879 of 2025
C/W WP No. 19971 of 2025
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS
MANAGING PARTNER
MR. YOGESH AGGARWAL.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ADITYA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
10.06.2025 PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL COURT, BANGALORE
IN COMM. EX PET NO.721 OF 2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE
A. FILED BY THE DECREE HOLDER FOR RELEASE OF AMOUNT
OF INR 31,20,520/- ANNEXURE - J AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 19971/2025
BETWEEN:
M/S. MARCADEO ENTERPRISES
(A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP UNDER
THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932),
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
127/1/26, W-1, SAKET NAGAR,
KANPUR - 208 014,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ADITYA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S ITW CATALYST PRIVATE LIMTED
(A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013),
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
16/1, 1ST FLOOR, AVS COMPOUND,
80FT ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 560 034.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:26024
WP No. 17879 of 2025
C/W WP No. 19971 of 2025
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTORS.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALLING FOR THE
RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS IN COM. EX. NO. 721 OF
2024 ON THE FILE OF LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND BE FURTHER PLEASED
TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
10 JUNE 2025, WHEREBY THE INTERLOCUTORY
APPLICATION NO. NIL/2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
FOR RELEASING OF 75 PERCENT DEPOSIT MADE BY THE
RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE MSME ACT,
2006 MADE IN COM.A.P. 84 OF 2024 TOWARDS PARTIAL
SATISFACTION OF THE EXECUTION OF THE ARBITRAL
AWARD WAS REJECTED THEREIN AS ANNEXURE-E3 AND
ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:26024
WP No. 17879 of 2025
C/W WP No. 19971 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
These petitions call in question a solitary order or its
aftermath. W.P.No.17879/2025 is preferred by the judgment
debtor. W.P.No.19971/2025 is preferred by the decree holder.
The parties to the lis were parties to a Service Agreement and
the dispute arose about the said Service Agreement and the
petitioner had filed a petition under Section 18 of the Micro,
Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, in
which an award is passed in Claim Petition No.86/2022. The
said award is called in question invoking section 19 read with
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Heard Sri.S.Kalyan Basavaraj, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Aditya Vijayaraghavan,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent in
W.P.No.17879/2025 and Sri.Aditya Vijayaraghavan, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.S.Kalyan Basavaraj
learned counsel appearing for the respondent in
W.P.No.19971/2025.
NC: 2025:KHC:26024
HC-KAR
3. The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Court,
Kanpur, had passed an order of deposit of an amount of
Rs.41,60,693/-.The issue is not with regard to the merit of the
claim. The petitioner files an appeal under Section 34 before
the Court at Bangalore. The Court realizing the fact that it does
not have jurisdiction, directs the petitioner to file the same
before the competent Court at Kanpur. While granting stay in
the said petition, deposit of 75% of the amount i.e., 75% of
Rs.41,60,693/- was made pursuant to a direction of the
concerned Court.
4. In the light of the case being directed to present it
before the competent Court at Kanpur, what happens to the
deposit has led to these proceedings. The deposit was sought
to be withdrawn by the judgment debtor and the decree holder
both. The applications come to be rejected. After rejection of
the applications, the concerned Court issues a warrant against
the judgment debtor and therefore, the judgment debtor is at
the doors of this Court. The issue now would be the
proceedings are now pending before the Kanpur Court. The
NC: 2025:KHC:26024
HC-KAR
Kanpur Court to entertain the petition, the petitioner-judgment
debtor has to deposit 75% of the amount which is a statutory
requirement. Therefore, the amount lying before this Court is
sought to be withdrawn by the judgment debtor and to be
deposited before the concerned Court at Kanpur.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the decree holder
submits that in the event deposit would not be made, his
execution would be put to jeopardy and the Court would not
continue the execution proceedings, if the Kanpur Court would
not pass any order. In that light, to resolve the issue, I deem it
appropriate to direct the Registry of the Court of Commercial
Court, Bengaluru, to transmit the amount that is in deposit i.e.,
75% to the Registry of the concerned Court at Kanpur, without
brooking any delay.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the matter is listed today for such deposit before
the Kanpur Court and places on record the evidence of such
listing. In that light, the Registry of the concerned Court shall
NC: 2025:KHC:26024
HC-KAR
forthwith transmit the amount in deposit to the concerned
Court in Civil Misc. Case No.18/2025.
7. In the light of the said transmission and the interim
order subsisting today, I deem it appropriate to extend the
same for a period of three weeks so as to enable the Registry
to transmit the amount and the petitioner seek appropriate
order before the concerned Court.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder
submits that the Apex Court in the case of RAHUL S SHAH vs.
JINENDRA KUMAR GANDHI (2021) 6 SCC 418, has
directed that the execution cases must be concluded within one
year from its institution. He would further contend that the
present execution is pending for the last nine months and there
should be a direction from this Court to conclude it in terms of
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RAHUL S SHAH
supra. The submissions though would merit acceptance, this
Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the concerned Court at
Kanpur is hearing a petition under Section 34 of the Act. Since
this Court has continued the interim order for a period of three
NC: 2025:KHC:26024
HC-KAR
weeks for the petitioner to secure an order at the hands of the
concerned Court at Kanpur, for those three weeks, the
execution cannot be permitted to go on. In the event the
petitioner would not secure any order before the concerned
Court at Kanpur, the execution proceedings naturally would be
permitted to be continued.
With the aforesaid observations, the petitions stand
disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
CBC
CT:SS
