ORDER : PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J. Heard the learned counsel Sri Pradeep Nayak for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri Pavan Kumar on behalf of Smt. Annapurna bordoloi for the respondent/Caveator. 2. The objections raised by the Registry is overruled. 3. These three matters are taken up for disposal with consent of both the learned counsels. 4. These petitions are filed by the decree holder in the Commercial Execution petition No.686/2024. An arbitration proceedings was initiated by the respondent which culminated by virtue of an order dated 09.10.2023 in A.C. No.207/2022. Based on the said arbitral award, decree holder filed execution petition to execute the arbitral award in the Commercial Execution Petition No.686/2024. In the said execution petition, the decree holder filed three applications; one Under section 60 read with Order 21 and section 151 CPC ; Second under Order 21 Rule 41 read with section 151 CPC; Third Under Order 21 Rule 11(A) read with section 151 CPC. All these applications were taken up together and by virtue of a common order dated 30.08.2025, the learned Judge of the commercial court being not convinced with the arguments made on the applications, rejected all the three applications which is impugned in these three petitions. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel Sri Pradeep Nayak appearing on behalf of the petitioner that, the principal award amount as on the date of the award stood at Rs.11,36,51,125/-payable by the respondent. The respondent had paid a meagre amount of Rs.39,67,756/-. Apart from this, there was an amount of Rs.1,67,99,990/- which was deposited during the arbitration proceedings by the respondent. So also another portion of the amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/- was held as a security deposit which was to be adjusted against receivables. The table is mentioned in the writ petition is as under: PETITIONER'S COMPUTATION AND WORKINGS OF AWARD VALUE 6. Aggrieved by the arbitral award, the respondent challenged the same by filing a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Act') in commercial arbitration petition No.155/2023. In the said application under section 34 of the Act, there was an order of stay granted subject to deposit of 5% of the award amount within a period of five weeks, which was again challenged by the petitioner herein in W.P.No.23546/2023, and the same came to be dismissed. In the said application under section 34 of the Act, there was an order of stay granted subject to deposit of 5% of the award amount within a period of five weeks, which was again challenged by the petitioner herein in W.P.No.23546/2023, and the same came to be dismissed. The same was taken up before the Apex Court and the Apex Court modified the condition of stay of the award and directed the respondent to deposit 50% of the award in accordance to the undertaking given by the counsel for the respondent. 7. Therefore, it is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that, as per the arbitral award of Rs.11,36,51,125/-, the JDR-respondent herein ought to have deposited Rs.5,68,25,562/- for the stay to be in force. However, the respondent-JDR deposited only a meagre sum of Rs.39,67,756/-, in total, which is far less than what was ordered by the Apex Court and constituted less than 3.5% of the award amount . 8. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that arbitration application filed under Section 34 of the Act came to be dismissed by the judgment dated 07.02.2025, despite which, respondent had not deposited 50% of the amount as ordered by the Apex Court. 9. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the arbitration application under section 34 of the Act, the respondent preferred an appeal in COMAP No.125/2025 under Section 37 of the Act. It is now brought to the notice of this court that, even that said commercial appeal came to be disposed of on 21.11.2025 making a partial alteration with regard to the interest component reducing from 18% to 12%. This being the state of affairs, the petitioner preferred these three applications before the executing court seeking a direction for attachment of the monies deposited in the bank account of the respondent. The bank account of the respondent number 11053601868 in IDFC bank, Frazer town, and in another application sought for a direction to the respondent to file an affidavit disclosing the particulars of its assets, including but not limited to immovable and movable property, bank accounts with bank balance, stock holdings and any other investments, garnishees of the respondent along with necessary statements of accounts reflecting its current assets. Another application for arrest of the respondents-JDR for non-fulfillment of the decreetal amount 10. Another application for arrest of the respondents-JDR for non-fulfillment of the decreetal amount 10. Before the executing Court, the respondent had appeared and filed detailed statement of objections denying the statement so made by the petitioner and contested the matter taking a plea that he deposited substantial amount before this court. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has deposited Rs.4,13,13,116/- in favour of the petitioner/DHR and therefore the contention taken up by the learned counsel for petitioner that meagre amount is deposited is controverted. He also contended that, aggrieved by the order of disposal of the commercial appeal filed under section 37 of the Act, the respondent is contemplating to challenge the same before the Apex Court and hence he seeks a week's time to ascertain the details regarding payment if any made to make a submission before this court. It is also contended by learned counsel for the respondent that before the executing court he has filed memo of calculation disclosing that he had deposited Rs.4,13,13,116/- including the security deposit and the same has been rightly taken into consideration by the commercial court. 12. He also contends that there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the executing Court. For the reason that the respondent is disputing the amount so claimed in the execution petition and the applications filed by the petitioner-DHR before the Executing Court all are premature and no proper details are given by the petitioner/DHR in the Executing Court to execute the award to allow the applications so filed regarding disclosure of assets and other bank accounts both including movable and immovable properties and the question of arrest would not arise as the petitioner/DHR has not mentioned the amount that is due to be paid after filing the memo of calculation and deduction has not been considered. Therefore there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the executing court. On these grounds he seeks to dismiss the petition. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 14. Therefore there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the executing court. On these grounds he seeks to dismiss the petition. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 14. The fact remains with regard to the arbitral award having been passed and same having attained finality as of now slight modification at the behest of the respondent when filing an appeal under section 37 of the Act that this court modified reduced the interest component from 18% to 12% all other things were not interfered either under section 34 petition or in the appeal preferred under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Thereby, the award has not been interfered both in two Courts on challenge made by the respondent. What is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for respondent is that he has made substantial payment and he has filed a memo of calculation to that effect before the executing Court. Even before this court no cogent piece of document is placed with regard to payment of the amount so claimed by the respondent by a documentary evidence with regard to bank statement or the acceptance of receipt by the petitioner/DHR . 15. The Executing court has not taken all these aspects into consideration and in a mechanical manner has rejected the applications on the ground that the respondent has preferred appeal under section 37 of the act which is pending adjudication. Now that the section 37 application has been disposed by slightly reducing the interest component, nothing further survives in these matters except for a direction to the executing court to proceed further and the impugned order passed by the executing court is not sustainable as the learned executing court has not considered these aspects. The respondent has also not paid the amount as ordered by the Apex Court to deposit even 50% when the matter was challenged before the Apex Court. Therefore, since there is no stay granted either by this court in the appeal filed under section 37 of the Act or any order of the Apex court, the Executing court is left with no other alternative but to proceed further in the matter. Therefore, since there is no stay granted either by this court in the appeal filed under section 37 of the Act or any order of the Apex court, the Executing court is left with no other alternative but to proceed further in the matter. The impugned order passed in these applications will have to be set aside as the same is perverse and illegal, I find total non-application of mind by the executing court in considering these three applications preferred by the petitioner-decree holder. 16. In the execution petition what is relevant to be seen by the executing court is whether the JDR has made good the decreetal amount or award amount as claimed in the execution petition rather than waiting for an order to be passed by the Appellate Court or the challenge made to the said arbitral award in any of the proceedings unless a stay order is placed before the executing court with regard to the stay of the execution proceedings, which is not the case in the present proceedings. Therefore, having perused the three applications filed which are stated herein above, the three applications ought to have to be consequently allowed by the executing court directing the respondent-JDR to show cause why the respondent should not be arrested, and direct the respondent again to file an affidavit with regard to furnishing of particulars and assets including movables and immovable property, bank accounts with bank balance, stockholdings, deposits and garnishees of the respondent and other investments of the respondent and necessary statement of accounts reflecting its current assets. However opportunity ought to have been given to the respondent to show if he has made payment of any amount before the Trial Court as stated by him before this Court that he has filed a memo of calculation for having deposited Rs.4,13,13,116/-. 17. Accordingly, I pass 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. 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.