Karnataka High Court
M/S Spring Borewells Co Pvt Ltd vs M/S Kanyakumari Builders Pvt Limited on 16 July, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:26524
WP No. 15324 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 15324 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. SPRING BOREWELLS CO. PVT. LTD.,
(COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956)
HAVING OFFICE AT NO.41, CUBBON ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI. K.L.SWAMY.
2. L.K.TRUST,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NO. 101, INFANTRY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE
Digitally signed by SRI. K.L.SWAMY
NAGAVENI UNDER TRUST ACT.
Location: High
Court of ...PETITIONERS
Karnataka
(BY SRI ABHINAV R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S. KANYAKUMARI BUILDERS PVT. LIMITED,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT "RAHEJA
CHAMBERS", LINKING ROAD, AND MAIN AVENUE
SANTACRUZ (W) MUMBAI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:26524
WP No. 15324 of 2025
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR. ADITHYA RAHEJA.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI AJESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
ANNEXURE-A NAMELY THE ORDER DATED 03.05.2025 PASSED
BY LEARNED LXXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BANGALORE, COMMERCIAL COURT (CCH-88) AT
BANGALORE IN COM. EX.NO. 1223/2017 DIRECTING THE
OFFICE TO RELEASE RS.17.5 CRORE IN FAVOUR OF
RESPONDENT HEREIN ON THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION
NO.5 FILED UNDER SECTION 36 OF ARBITRATION AND
CONCILIATION ACT 1996 R.W.ORDER XXI RULE 1
R.W.SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners-judgment debtors are before this Court
calling in question an order of the concerned court dated
03.05.2025 by which the office was directed to release ₹ 17.5
crores in favour of the respondent on an interlocutory
application in IA No.5 filed under Section 36 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred to as the 'Act').
NC: 2025:KHC:26524
HC-KAR
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
two applications were filed on the same day, one seeking
withdrawal of the amount and one advancing the case. The
application that was filed seeking withdrawal of the amount was
not served on him, it was only the application seeking
advancement of the case that was served. Therefore, he was
not present at the time when the order was passed.
3. Learned counsel Sri.Ajesh Kumar S., appearing for
the respondent would, however, dispute the position
contending that the applications were indeed served upon the
petitioners, be those submissions as they are.
4. In the light of the contention that the application
was not served upon him and the absence of the petitioners on
the said date, it becomes prima facie an ex parte order
directing the release of the amount in favour of the decree
holder. It is also a fact that is to be noticed that the petitioners-
judgment debtors have suffered orders before a Fora and has
partially succeeded in the Appellate Fora filed under Section 34
NC: 2025:KHC:26524
HC-KAR
of the Act and both the judgment debtors and the decree
holder are before the Division Bench of this Court in an appeal
filed under Section 37 of the Act. The issue now is with regard
to an application that is allowed directing release of ₹ 17.5
crores in favour of the decree holder.
5. In the light of the aforesaid circumstance of a doubt
with regard to the service of notice and the consequent
absence of the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to direct the
concerned Court to consider the application seeking withdrawal
of the amount after hearing both the parties, in accordance
with law.
6. It is needless to observe that it is open to the
petitioners to file their objections to the said application. The
said application after hearing both the parties shall merit
consideration and its conclusion be within four weeks from the
date of receipt of the copy of this order.
7. Till such time, the interim order of restraint granted
by this Court shall continue. The concerned Court is at liberty to
NC: 2025:KHC:26524
HC-KAR
pass further orders. The interim order would continue only till
the disposal of the application, which is directed to be
concluded within four weeks from the date of receipt of the
copy of this order.
8. It is made clear that this court has not answered
any claim on the merit of the matter, either of the petitioners
or of the respondent. All contentions would remain open to be
urged before the concerned Court.
Ordered accordingly and Writ Petition is disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
CBC
CT:SS
