Dismissed¶82

Sri Ashish Koruth Philip Kallumparambil Philip v. Caledon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2025WP/34751/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction versus appellate review; change/replacement of court commissioner in execution proceedings; Order XXI Rules 54, 64 and 66 CPC — attachment, sale and proclamation of sale; auction of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties; forfeiture of 25% bid amount and resale; sale certificate to successful bidder; commercial execution money recovery of Rs.3,42,60,263/-; X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural; costs imposed for repetitive writ petitions (Rs.2,00,000/- earlier in WP 17453/2025, Rs.50,000/- herein); GM-CPC writ petition, Karnataka High Court, 2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; writ petition dismissed, with further cost of Rs.50,000/- imposed on the petitioner/JDR, payable within 3 weeks ¶82

Sri Ashish Koruth Philip Kallumparambil Philip Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner; writ petition dismissed, with further cost of Rs.50,000/- imposed on the petitioner/JDR, payable within 3 weeks

¶82

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner/JDR has made out any valid and cogent grounds to change the Court Commissioner appointed by the executing Court for auction of the 'A' schedule property. +1 more

¶68

Court's answer

The Court found no good ground or cogent reason shown by the petitioner/JDR to accept the contention for changing the Court Commissioner; the petitioner had raised no objection to the commissioner at the initial stage of his appointment, when he was suggested by the respondent/DHR.

¶73

Ratio / Principle

Only vague allegations without proper reasons cogent enough were made against the Court Commissioner after the 'B' schedule property auction, with no specific legal procedure violation or partiality identified — a finding the executing Court itself recorded in paragraph No.8 of the impugned order, which this Court endorsed.

¶61

Key takeaways

The orders of the executing Court are not perverse, arbitrary or illegal; there is no perversity, illegality or error warranting exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court not sitting in appellate jurisdiction.ratio¶80
The petitioner/JDR's non-payment of the Rs.2,00,000/- cost imposed in the co-ordinate writ petition WP No.17453/2025, and the filing of petition after petition, indicated a sole intention of delaying the culmination of the execution proceedings and could be a ground to reject this petition also.ratio¶73

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Pradeep Singh Yerur J) dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the judgment debtor in Commercial Execution No.198/2024 challenging the executing Court's order dated 27.10.2025, which allowed the decree-holder's memo dated 25.09.2025 and re-appointed Sri Vaibhav M. Iyengar as Court Commissioner for auction of the 'A' schedule property. Held: (i) no valid or cogent grounds were made out to change the Court Commissioner — the allegations against him were void and vague, with no specific procedure violation or partiality identified, and the petitioner had not objected to his initial appointment; (ii) the impugned order was neither perverse, arbitrary nor illegal, and no case for exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 was made out, the Court not sitting in appellate jurisdiction; (iii) the petitioner's earlier WP No.17453/2025 against the orders on IA No.1 in the same execution had been dismissed with Rs.2,00,000/- costs (unpaid), and the successive petitions appeared intended solely to delay the execution. Further cost of Rs.50,000/- imposed, payable within three weeks.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:48746 WP No. 34751 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 34751 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI ASHISH KORUTH PHILIP KALLUMPARAMBIL PHILIP S/O KP PHILIP AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.A-203, II FLOOR, VAKIL MAGNOLIA, MADIVALA VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK

¶10

BENGALURU RURAL - 562 106.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SWAROOP S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

CALEDON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT NOVEL BUSINESS PARK,

¶15

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

NEELASANDRA, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, SRI VISHAL SONI

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. SURAJ SAMPATH, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING FOR SETTING ASIDE OF THE ORDER DATED 27.10.2025 PASSED ON MEMO DATED 25.09.2025 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/ DHR BY THE X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL IN COM.EX.198/2024 (ANNEXURE-A).

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:48746 WP No. 34751 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed by the petitioner who is the JDR in Commercial Execution.No.198/2024.

¶26

The present petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs.

¶27

a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ setting aside of the order dated 27.10.2025 passed on memo dated 25.09.2025 filed by the respondent/DHR by the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural in Com.Ex.198/2024 (Annexure - A)

¶28

b) Consequently, directing the trial Court to appoint a new court commissioner for auction of the Schedule Property in accordance with law.

¶29

c) Grant any other order or direction as may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

¶30

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/JDR that respondent/DHR preferred an execution petition in Commercial Execution No.198/2024

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48746 WP No. 34751 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

against the petitioner/JDR seeking money recovery of a total sum of Rs.3,42,60,263/- (Three Crore Forty Two Lakhs Sixty Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Three Rupees only). In the said execution petition, respondent/DHR filed an application in IA No.1 under Order XXI Rule 54 and 64 of CPC seeking attachment and sale of properties belonging to the petitioner/JDR.

¶34

Thereafter, the executing Court passed an order appointing a court commissioner, namely Sri.Vaibhav.M.Iyengar, for conducting the auction of the 'A' and 'B' schedule property. Thereafter, a proclamation of sale of the petition suit schedule properties was issued in the local newspapers under Order XXI Rule 66 of CPC.

¶35

At an auction being conducted vide order dated 08.08.2025, for the 'A' Schedule property, one Sri.Sebastian Joseph emerged as the highest bidder, who paid the demand draft for a sum equivalent to 25% of the bid amount. The balance amount was unpaid. The

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48746 WP No. 34751 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

executing Court vide order dated 23.08.2025 forfeited the

¶39

25% of the bid amount and directed for resale of the schedule 'A' property. Again, when the auction was held in respect of the 'B' schedule property, it resulted in Sri.Sebastian Joseph yet again emerging as the highest bidder, who failed to deposit 25% of the bid amount. Adopting a contrary approach, the bids were placed before the trial Court. The Court thereafter called for a final bid and accepted the bid of one Sri Manvinder Singh Sawhaug. The entire sale consideration amount was received and directed to issue a sale certificate in favour of the successful bidder in respect of the 'B' schedule property i.e., Sri.Manvinder Singh Sawhaug.

¶40

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the

¶41

petitioner/JDR, that the petitioner /JDR aggrieved by the order dated 23.08.2025 and so far as its auction sale concerning the 'B' schedule property, preferred a writ petition in WP.No.28723/2025 before this Court. An interim order came to be passed on 08.10.2025 by a

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48746 WP No. 34751 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

direction to the trial Court to not precipitate the sale certificate till the next date of hearing and that the said petition is still pending adjudication before this Court.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner/JDR further contends that Sri.Sebastian Joseph, who had emerged as the highest bidder, had paid the DD for a sum equivalent to 25% of the bid amount, which was forfeited and subsequently, has filed a writ petition No. 28712/2025. Even in the said writ petition, an order was passed directing the executing Court not to precipitate the matter pertaining to the sale certificate.

¶46

It is contended that this being the state of affairs, the respondent/DHR filed a memo dated 25.09.2025 seeking appointment of the Court Commissioner, namely Sri. Vaibhav M Iyengar for auction of the 'A' schedule property. The petitioner/JDR filed objections to the said memo indicating that the Court Commissioner has not conducted the previous auction as

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48746 WP No. 34751 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

per law and has violated the legal procedures. Upon consideration of the said objection, the executing Court allowed the memo and appointed the Court Commissioner Sri.Vaibhav.M.Iyengar, which is now the subject matter of this petition.

¶50

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/JDR that the executing Court has passed an arbitrary order appointing the very same Court Commissioner who had conducted the auction for the 'B' schedule property and it is the grievance of the petitioner/JDR that the said Court Commissioner has not followed due procedures and has violated certain well established rules and procedures to be followed while conducting the sale. Therefore, he is apprehensive of the said Court Commissioner continuing the auctioning of the 'A' schedule property.

¶51

The said contentions are being negated by the trial Court and the executing Court. Hence, the

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:48746 WP No. 34751 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

petitioner/JDR aggrieved by the same is before this Court seeking to set aside the order dated 27.10.2025 and consequently to direct the executing Court to appoint a new Court Commissioner for auctioning of the schedule 'A' property.

¶55

Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Suraj Sampath, appearing for the respondent/DHR contends that this is a frivolous petition filed by the petitioner/JDR. This is the fifth writ petition filed by the petitioner/JDR. The sole intentional motive is to prolong and protract the proceedings, causing irreparable hardship and damage and mental agony to the successful DHR who has succeeded in the suit as well as in the execution proceedings through proper procedure and by appointment of the Court Commissioner by the executing Court.

¶56

The court Commissioner is appointed by the

¶57

court upon the suggestion of the learned counsel for respondent/DHR, which was not objected to by the

¶58

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:48746 WP No. 34751 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

petitioner/JDR at the initial time of appointment. Thereafter, after the auction of the 'B' schedule property, several allegations are made against the Court Commissioner. But, however, no proper reasons cogent enough are made against the Court Commissioner, which the executing Court noted in its impugned order clearly at paragraph No.8. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner/JDR.

¶62

The trial Court has dealt with the objections so raised by the petitioner/JDR for appointing a new Court Commissioner rather than the one who was appointed by the executing Court, as there was no basis and no proper ground to change the Court Commissioner. In fact, the trial Court has come to a conclusion that void and vague allegations are made against the Court Commissioner and

¶63

no proper ground is made out as to what are the procedures in law that are violated by the Court Commissioner and what is the partiality that is shown by

¶64

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:48746 WP No. 34751 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

the Court Commissioner. Under the circumstances, it is seen that the petition filed by the petitioner/JDR in WP No.17453/2025 before this Court, wherein the petitioner had challenged the orders passed on IA.No.1, the very same Execution Petition No.198/2024 and this Court came down heavily on the petitioner/JDR, dismissing the writ petition and imposed a cost of Rs.2,00,000/-.

¶67

It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent /DHR that the said cost is not paid and the petitioner/JDR is deliberately protracting the proceedings and filing one or the other petition with the sole intention to protract, prolong, and delay the execution proceedings where the DHR is successful.

¶68

Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, it is to be seen whether petitioner/JDR has made out any valid and cogent grounds to change the Court Commissioner appointed by the executing Court. Apparently, the petitioner/JDR had not questioned the

¶69

10 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:48746 WP No. 34751 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

appointment of the Court Commissioner, as he did not have any objection at the initial stage of the appointment of the Court Commissioner who was suggested by the respondent/DHR. Thereafter, several allegations are made against the Court commissioner for his appointment for auctioning of the 'A' schedule property.

¶73

I do not find any good ground or cogent reason shown by the petitioner/JDR to accept the said contention, which is also appreciated by the executing Court in the impugned order passed by it. Under the circumstances, it is also relevant to see that this Court in the Co-ordinate writ petition No.17453/2025 dismissed the petition by imposing cost of Rs.2,00,000/- which is not paid by the petitioner/JDR which could be a ground to reject this petition also as it seems that the petitioner/JDR is filing petition after petition with the sole intention of delaying the culmination of the execution proceedings.

¶74

11 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:48746 WP No. 34751 of 2025

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

I do not find any good ground or cogent reason

¶78

to interfere with the orders passed by the executing Court,

¶79

as the same is not found to be perverse, arbitrary or illegal. It is relevant to see that this Court is not sitting in

¶80

an appellate jurisdiction. It is exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Under the circumstances, there is no perversity, illegality or any error committed to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, I pass the following order.

¶81

ORDER

¶82

The petition is dismissed .

¶83

The petitioner/JDR shall pay further cost

¶84

amounting to a cost of Rs.50,000/-. Cost shall be paid within 3 weeks from today.

¶85

Sd/-

¶86

(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶87

RCK,List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 27.10.2025 passed on the respondent/DHR's memo dated 25.09.2025, allowing the memo and re-appointing Court Commissioner Sri Vaibhav M. Iyengar for auction of the 'A' schedule property (Annexure-A)¶27
X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural · 27.10.2025
Prior proceeding
Respondent/DHR preferred Commercial Execution No.198/2024 against the petitioner/JDR seeking money recovery of Rs.3,42,60,263/-¶30
Prior proceeding
Respondent/DHR filed IA No.1 under Order XXI Rule 54 and 64 of CPC seeking attachment and sale of properties belonging to the petitioner/JDR¶33
Prior proceeding
Executing Court appointed Sri Vaibhav M. Iyengar as court commissioner for auction of the 'A' and 'B' schedule properties; proclamation of sale issued in local newspapers under Order XXI Rule 66 of CPC¶34
Prior proceeding
Auction of 'A' schedule property conducted vide order dated 08.08.2025; Sri Sebastian Joseph emerged highest bidder and paid demand draft equivalent to 25% of the bid amount; balance amount unpaid¶35
Prior proceeding
By order dated 23.08.2025 the executing Court forfeited the 25% of the bid amount and directed resale of the schedule 'A' property¶38
Prior proceeding
Auction of 'B' schedule property: Sri Sebastian Joseph again emerged highest bidder but failed to deposit 25% of the bid amount; adopting a contrary approach, the bids were placed before the trial Court which called for a final bid¶39
Prior proceeding
Trial Court accepted the final bid of Sri Manvinder Singh Sawhaug; entire sale consideration received; sale certificate directed in his favour for the 'B' schedule property¶39
Prior proceeding
Petitioner/JDR, aggrieved by the order dated 23.08.2025 concerning the auction sale of the 'B' schedule property, preferred WP.No.28723/2025 before this Court¶41
Prior proceeding
Interim order dated 08.10.2025 in WP.No.28723/2025 directed the trial Court not to precipitate the sale certificate till the next date of hearing; that petition is still pending adjudication¶44
Prior proceeding
Sri Sebastian Joseph, whose 25% deposit was forfeited, filed WP No. 28712/2025, in which an order was passed directing the executing Court not to precipitate the matter pertaining to the sale certificate¶45
Prior proceeding
Respondent/DHR filed memo dated 25.09.2025 seeking appointment of Sri Vaibhav M Iyengar as Court Commissioner for auction of the 'A' schedule property; petitioner/JDR filed objections alleging the commissioner had not conducted the previous auction as per law and had violated legal procedures¶46
Prior proceeding
Upon consideration of the objections, the executing Court allowed the memo and appointed Court Commissioner Sri Vaibhav M. Iyengar — the order now under challenge in this petition¶49
Prior proceeding
Earlier, petitioner/JDR had challenged the orders passed on IA.No.1 in the very same Execution Petition No.198/2024 in WP No.17453/2025; this Court dismissed that writ petition and imposed a cost of Rs.2,00,000/-¶66
Prior proceeding
The Rs.2,00,000/- cost imposed in WP No.17453/2025 was not paid by the petitioner/JDR; respondent/DHR submitted the petitioner is deliberately protracting and delaying the execution proceedings¶73

Sri Ashish Koruth Philip Kallumparambil Philip v. Caledon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ashish Koruth Philip Kallumparambil Philip v. Caledon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharath Hi-Tech Builders Private Limited Vs Owswal Minerals Limited

M/S Abreco Freight Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Samoro Telecomes Pvt. Ltd.

Smt. Jyothi Vs Ramakrishnappa

Smt. M Shobha Vs Sri. J Munnagappa

Mahesh Kumar R Vs Sri Srinvasa Murthy R N

Smt. Padama Vs Sri Srikanth