Karnataka High Court
WP/30157/2026 of M/S.VAISHNAVI INDUSTRIES Vs SMT.NANDADEVI on 22 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010661692026 NC: 2026:KHC:52784 WP No. 30157 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 30157 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. M/S.VAISHNAVI INDUSTRIES A PROPRIETARY
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 30157 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
M/S.VAISHNAVI INDUSTRIES
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
MR NAGESHA H R
S/O H.R RAGHAVENDRA RAO
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 133,
3RD PHASE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA
BENGALURU 560058.
ALSO AT NO.212, AKSHAYADHAMA
2ND FLOOR, 7TH MAIN
MEC LAYOUT, LAGGERE,
BENGALURU - 560058.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI SACHIN B. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT.NANDADEVI
W/O MOHAN B.R.,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO.180/E, 4TH A MAIN
3RD BLOCK, 3RD STAGE
BASAVESHWARNAGAR
2.
GOLDNMINE ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
AT 157, 11TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN,
NGEF LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI,
BENGALURU 560072,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
3.
SRI. VINAY KUMAR N.
S/O. NAGARAJ GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
DIRECTOR,
M/S. GOLDNMINE ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,
NO. 157, 11TH CROSS,
6TH MAIN, NRUPATHUNGA NAGAR,
NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU 560072.
4.
SRI. YOGESH B.S.
S/O. LATE SHADAKSHRI B.,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
DIRECTOR,
M/S. GOLDNMINE ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,
COTTONPET, BENGALURU - 560053.
NO. 123, 2ND CROSS,
THOTADEVARA LANE (T.D. LANE),
BEHIND VEERABHADRASWAMY TEMPLE,
5.
SRI. R.P. LOKESH
S/O. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA,
DIRECTOR,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
M/S. GOLDNMINE ENTERPRISES
NO.7, 3RD CROSS, NEAR K.B.C. COLLEGE,
SRIDHAR GUDDA MAIN ROAD,
KODIPALYA, KENGERI,
BENGALURU - 560060.
6.
SRI. MOHAN B.R.
AGED MAJOR,
DIRECTOR,
RESIDING AT NO. 180/E, 4TH A MAIN
3RD BLOCK, 3RD STAGE
HC-KAR
BASAVESHWARNAGAR
BENGALURU - 560079
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANOJ B.G., ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
ORDER DATED 01.09.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DEDICATED
COMMERCIAL
COURT,
BENGALURU
RURAL
DISTRICT,
BENGALURU,
IN
COM.EX.
NO.218/2026,
WHEREBY
THE
APPLICATION FILED BY THE AS PER ANNEXURE-A PETITIONER
UNDER ORDER XXI RULE 58 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE HAS BEEN REJECTED, AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION AS PRAYED
FOR THEREIN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
The Registry has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition.
2. The proviso to Section 13(1) and (1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provides for an appeal against the orders passed by the Commercial Court, insofar as such orders are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure.
HC-KAR
3. Perusal of Order XLIII of the CPC would disclose that an order passed under Order XXI Rule 58 is not appealable. In that view of the matter, the office objection is overruled. The writ petition is maintainable.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impleadment was made in execution proceedings instituted for execution of the consent award, to which the petitioner was not made a party. It is further submitted that a separate writ petition, being W.P. No.28839/2026, has been filed impugning the consent award. It is submitted that, in view of the filing of W.P. No.28839/2026, this petition may be disposed of, keeping open all contentions.
5. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The petitioner has filed W.P. No.28839/2026, impugning the consent award, which is the subject matter of the impugned execution proceedings. Since the contentions of the petitioner are pending consideration in the said petition, the
HC-KAR
present writ petition need not be entertained. However, any observations made in the impugned order shall not come in the way of the petitioner in prosecuting the contentions raised in W.P. No.28839/2026.
With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
VP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 149