(Prayer: 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 Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.)

Oral Order

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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, if the respondent is willing to make good the amount to the satisfaction of the execution petition, he shall do so by satisfying the execution petition before the executing Court within a reasonable time.

          vi) It is needless to mention that if the respondent shows bonafides by complying with the applications filed by the petitioner/DHR for production of assets including movables and immovable properties which would satisfy the decree holder, then the decree holder, as well as trial Court may keep in abeyance the application for arrest of the respondent, which is again on the satisfaction with regard to the security or the amounts bonafide shown by the respondent.

6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that in pursuance of the said order, notices were issued, one of the directors had appeared before the executing Court and filed his affidavit along with the assets of the company. Whereas the petitioner, instead of appearing before the executing Court, comes before this Court and obtains an order of stay of the arrest warrant issued against him which he could have very well exercised by appearing before the very same executing Court and the other director has approached the executing Court by filing an affidavit disclosing the assets of the company.

7. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner and the other directors are deliberately playing fraud on the Court by not disclosing the proper assets of the company despite a notice being served in accordance to law. Deliberately, one of the directors appears before the executing Court, the other director comes before this Court, who is the petitioner herein. They do not comply with the requirements of filing an affidavit of assets, disclosing the assets of the company including the registered address of the company and in view of the violation of Order XXI Rule 41 (1) and (2) of CPC, the executing Court was left with no option but to invoke the provision of Order XXI Rule 41 (3) by issuing arrest warrant, which is valid and in accordance with law and the same does not call for interference.

8. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the company, which was represented in the earlier round of litigation, had made a categorical submission before this Court for having deposited Rs.4,13,13,116/-. It is admitted that even this amount is not deposited by the company before the executing Court. Of course this is a matter to be decided by the executing Court and the matter is pending before it. The point to be decided by this Court at this stage; is the issuance of an arrest warrant against the petitioner who claims to be a shareholder and one of the directors of the company along with the other person who is already before the executing Court is justified?

9. Order 21 Rule 41(1) (2) (3) of CPC which reads as under:

          41. Examination of judgment-debtor as to his property.

          (1) Where a decree is for the payment of money the decree-holder may apply to the Court for an order that-

          (a) The judgment-debtor, or

          (b) where the judgment-debtor is a corporation, any officer thereof, or

          (c) any other person, be orally examined as to whether any or what debts are owing to the judgment-debtor and whether the judgment-debtor has any and what other property or means of satisfying the decree; and the Court may make an order for the attendance and examination of such judgment-debtor, or officer or other person, and for the production of any books or documents.

          (2) Where a decree for the payment of money has remained unsatisfied for a period of thirty days, the Court may, on the application of the decree-holder and without prejudice to its power under sub-rule (1), by order require the judgment-debtor or where the judgment-debtor is a corporation, any officer thereof, to make an affidavit stating the particulars of the assets of the judgment-debtor.

          (3) In case of disobedience of any order made under sub-rule (2), the Court making the order, or any Court to which the proceeding is transferred, may direct that the person disobeying the order be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months unless before the expiry of such term the Court directs his release.

10. On careful perusal of the order 21 Rule 41 1(b), it is seen that where the judgment debtor is a corporation, any officer thereof, or any other person, be orally examined as to whether any or what debts are owing to the judgment-debtor and whether the judgment- debtor has any and what other property or means of satisfying the decree; and the Court may make an order for the attendance and examination of such judgment- debtor, or officer or other person, and for the production of any books or documents.

11. Order 21 Rule 41 (2) (3) is of consequences of non obeyance of sub-Rule 1 and violation of sub-Rule 2 leads to the following of sub-Rule 3. The executing Court has invoked sub-Rule 3 in view of disobedience of sub- Rule 1 and sub-Rule 2, where the officers or other persons as stated in sub-Rule 1(c), have not filed an affidavit stating particulars of assets of the judgment debtor. One of the directors is already before the court and he has filed an affidavit. The executing court shall deal with it in accordance with law.

12. Now coming to the petitioner in this case, his grievance of being issued an arrest warrant without providing an opportunity to file an affidavit would have to be considered favourably. In view of the fact that the petitioner refused the summons, the executing Court has proceeded further by following due process of law. Now that the petitioner is present before this Court and has appeared before this Court in pursuance of the arrest warrant, he can subject himself before the executing Court, comply with the requirements as provided under sub clause 2 of Order XXI Rule 41 of CPC and show cause and provide necessary particulars and details of the assets of the Judgment debtor - Company, as there is no dispute that the petitioner is the shareholder and one of the directors of the Judgment Debtor- Company. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the executing Court and explore all options available to him in law and the executing Court shall proceed further in accordance with law. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

ORDER

          The petition is allowed.

          ii. The impugned order dated 27.01.2026 insofar as issuance of arrest warrant as against the petitioner Mr.Abdul Rasheed is hereby set aside.

          iii. Petitioner shall appear before the executing Court on 03.03.2026. Upon appearance, the executing Court shall proceed further by providing an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause and provide details with regard to the judgment debtor company. It is open to the executing Court to proceed further in accordance with law.

          iv. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

          v. A week's time is granted to the petitioner to file his assets if required, if so advised to place before the executing Court and the executing Court shall proceed with the matter.