M/S. SALUTARIS TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., vs MR. MAHADEV TOTAPPA YELAMALI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59068
WP No. 31459 of 2026
R
CNR: KAHC010691812026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 31459 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. SALUTARIS TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT.
72, 5TH CROSS, HIG COLONY,
DOLLARS COLONY, SANJAY NAGAR,
RMV, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU 560094
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MRS. PRAKRITHY NARAYANAN
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANY'S ACT 2013
2. MRS. PRAKRITHY NARAYANAN
W/O MR. AKSHAY URAL
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
MANAGING DIRECTOR AT.
M/S SALUTARIS TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.
72, 5TH CROSS, HIG COLONY,
DOLLARS COLONY, SANJAY NAGAR,
RMV 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560094
3. MR. AKSHAY HARIKRISHNA URAL
S/O MR. HARIKRISHNA URAL
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
DIRECTOR AT. M/S SALUTARIS
TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD.
#72, 5TH CROSS, HIG COLONY,
DOLLARS COLONY, SANJAY NAGAR,
RMV 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU 560094
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59068
WP No. 31459 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010691812026
4. MRS. PRAKRITHY NARAYANAN
W/O MR. KASHAY URAL
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
72, 5TH CROSS, HIG COLONY,
DOLLARS COLONY, SANJAY NAGAR,
RMV 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560094
5. MR. SREEDHAR K. S.
S/O MR. SHREERAMA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
72, 5TH CROSS, HIG COLONY,
DOLLARS COLONY, SANJAY NAGAR,
RMV 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560094
6. MR. AKSHAY HARIKRISHNA URAL
S/O MR. HARIKRISHNA URAL
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
DIRECTOR AT. M/S SALUTARIS
TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.
72, 5TH CROSS, HIG COLONY
DOLLARS COLONY, SANJAY NAGAR,
RMV 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560094
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE
SRI. MAHESHKIRAN SHETTY S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. MAHADEV TOTAPPA YELAMALI
S/O LATE SRI. TOTAPPA YELAMALI
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
2. MRS. IRA MAHADEV YELAMAL
W/O MR. MAHADEV TOTAPPA YELAMALI
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 BOTH
PERMANENTLY R/AT. 2ND CROSS,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59068
WP No. 31459 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010691812026
SIDDALING NAGAR, MULAGUND ROAD,
MANVI PLOTS, SHIRAHATTI,
GADAG - 582101
PRESENTLY R/AT NO. 98, S-1, 2ND FLOOR,
SWATHI PARAMESWARI APARTMENT,
CIL LAYOUT, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
SANJAY NAGAR, BENGALURU 560094
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. DILIP KUMAR I S.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
COMPROMISE DECREE DATED 09.10.2025 PASSED BY THE
LXXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT), AT BENGALURU (CCH-84) IN COM.
O.S. NO. 1469/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL ORDER
The present writ petition is filed seeking for the following
reliefs:
a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other
appropriate Writ or direction to quash the compromise
decree dated 09.10.2025 passed by the LXXXIII Addl.
City Civil & Sessions Judge (Commercial Court), at
Bengaluru (CCH-84) in Com. O.S. No. 1469/2024 vide
Annexure-А;
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59068
WP No. 31459 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010691812026
b) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other
appropriate Writ or direction to quash the order dated
31.08.2026 passed by the LXXXIII Addl. City Civil
& Sessions Judge (Exclusively Dedicated Commercial
Court), at Bengaluru (CCH-84) in Com. Misc. No.
15/2026 vide Annexure-N;
c) Declare the compromise petition as illegal, null,
unenforceable and not binding on the Petitioners;
d) Pass any other order and direction as this Hon'ble
Court deems fit to pass under the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and
equity."
2. The relevant factual matrix in a nutshell leading to
the present writ petition is that respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a
suit (Com OS.No.1469/2024) for recovery of a sum of
Rs.5,93,50,000/- together with interest at 24% per annum.
The petitioner Nos.1 to 6 were arrayed as defendant Nos.1 to 6
in the said suit. The claim made by the respondent Nos.1 and
2/plaintiffs in the said suit was that the petitioners/defendant
Nos.1 to 6 having been in need of certain funds, the parties had
entered into an Investment Agreement dated 19.08.2022 and
subsequent Agreements dated 14.10.2022, 07.02.2023,
13.06.2023 and 31.10.2023 and 01.04.2024, whereunder
respondent Nos.1 and 2 had invested a total sum of
Rs.4,50,00,000/- with the defendants in the said suit. The
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59068
WP No. 31459 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010691812026
amounts not having been repaid, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed
the suit for recovery of the overdue amounts together with
interest.
3. In the said suit the parties had filed a compromise
petition, whereunder it was agreed that the defendants would
repay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.6,46,40,565/- together with
interest. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 in the said suit issued cheques
dated 10.01.2026 each for a sum of Rs.6,46,40,565/-. Various
other terms were mentioned in the said compromise petition.
Accordingly, the suit (Com.OS.No.1469/2025) was disposed of
in terms of the said compromise. Assailing the said
compromise, the present writ petition is filed.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners in support of the grounds urged in the present writ
petition contends that the compromise was recorded in extreme
urgency and the same is fraudulent. Various terms of the
compromise are referred to so as to indicate that more than
double the amount than what was claimed has been recorded
in the compromise and defendant Nos.1 to 4 issued cheques for
payment of the said amounts. That the petitioners were forced
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59068
WP No. 31459 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010691812026
to enter into the compromise, which was drafted by
respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs without even allowing the
petitioners to go through the same. That the mandatory
provisions for recording the said compromise were not followed.
It is further specifically contended that the compromise was
recorded in the order sheet of the suit and the said procedure is
contrary to law laid down by this Court. Various circumstances
have also been detailed out, to contend that the petitioners are
not bound by the compromise. It is further contended that
consequent to the compromise, the petitioners had filed an
application under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil
1
Procedure, 1908 to set aside the compromise decree dated
09.10.2025 and the Commercial Court having rejected the said
application vide order dated 31.08.2026 (Annexure-N to the
writ petition) on the ground, inter alia that since fraud is
alleged in the compromise, the same is to be assailed in an
appropriate proceedings before this Court.
5. Per contra , learned Senior Counsel for respondent
Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs submits that having regard to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hemantha
1
Hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59068
WP No. 31459 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010691812026
2
Kumar v. R.Mahadevaiah & Ors., the procedure undertaken
by the Commercial Court in recording the compromise in the
order sheet of the suit cannot be faulted. It is further
contended that consequent to the compromise decree that was
passed, the petitioners not having adhered to the terms of the
compromise, respondent Nos.1 and 2 instituted Execution
Proceedings (Com.Ex.No.37/2026) and the petitioners had
entered appearance before the Executing Court. That after
various dates of hearing before the Executing Court, the
application has been filed for setting aside of the compromise
before the Commercial Court, consequent to the dismissal of
which, the present writ petition is filed.
6. Referring to the terms of the compromise, it is
contended on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that although 4
cheques of Rs.6,46,40,565/- were issued by defendant Nos.1 to
4, only one payment of Rs.6,46,40,565/- was to be paid
together with interest. It is further contended that the
petitioners who were arrayed as defendant Nos.1 to 6 in the
suit had consistently defaulted in the matter of repayment of
the monies consequent to the agreements between the parties
2
2022(8) SCC 140
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59068
WP No. 31459 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010691812026
and the present petition is another attempt on the part of the
petitioners to delay any repayment of the amounts due and
payable to respondent Nos.1 and 2.
7. Both the learned Senior Counsels have relied on
various judgments, which shall be referred to, to the extent
that the same are required for the purpose of adjudicating the
matter in question in the present writ petition.
8. Detailed submissions have been made on behalf of
the petitioners and respondent Nos.1 and 2 and material on
record have been perused.
9. The transaction between the parties resulting in the
agreements executed is undisputed. The amounts payable
under the agreements are the subject matter of the suit
(Com.OS.No.1469/2024). During the pendency of the suit, the
parties have entered into a compromise. In the compromise
petition, detail averments have been set out as to the nature of
transactions between the parties as well as with regard to
various payments that have been made periodically; as also as
to the various defaults made with regard to the payments that
were undertaken to be made. The said compromise petition
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59068
WP No. 31459 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010691812026
also details the property that has been the subject matter of
attachment in the transactions between the parties.
10. It is undisputed that the parties to the compromise
before the Commercial Court were educated, had access to
appropriate legal advise and were represented by counsels in
the proceedings before the Commecial Court, which culminated
in the compromise. The nature of transactions between the
parties which was the subject matter of the suit and
compromise clearly indicate that the said financial transactions
were between the parties, who regularly carried on such
transactions.
11. The contention on behalf of the petitioners that the
compromise has been recorded in the order sheet of the suit
and the reliance placed by the petitioner in support of that
contention on Co-ordinate Bench judgments of this Court i.e., -
3
Smt.Akkubai v. Shri Venkatrao and Others ; Pushpa and
4
others v. Soma Shekar and others ; Shivavva @
Shantavva Banadavar and others v. Shivaling Bannappa
3
ILR 2014 KAR 2051
4
2026 SCC OnLine Kar 8216
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59068
WP No. 31459 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010691812026
5 6
Omannavar and others ; and Renuka v. Ramanand will
not aid the case of the petitioners having regard to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hemanth
2
Kumar . In this context, it is necessary to refer to the relevant
portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court, which reads as
under:
" 6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such
the plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2 and their advocates
filed the application before the learned trial court under
Order 23 Rule 3CPC and requested to pass a consent
decree submitting that the parties have settled the
disputes. Filing of the application under Order 23 Rule
3CPC is not disputed by Defendants 1 and 2. That
thereafter instead of passing the consent decree on the
basis of the application filed under Order 23 Rule 3CPC as
requested and prayed, for whatever reason, the learned
trial court referred the matter to the Lok Adalat. Before
the Lok Adalat, the learned advocates appearing on behalf
of the plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2 appeared and they
requested to pass the consent decree and accordingly in
the Lok Adalat, which was presided over by the very
learned Judge, a consent decree came to be passed.
Merely because the learned trial court, before whom the
application was presented, referred the matter to the Lok
Adalat, cannot be a ground to doubt the genuineness of
the consent decree. Many a time, it happens that for
whatever reason, instead of passing the decree/consent
decree in the court, the matter is referred to the Lok
Adalat and directed to be placed before the Lok Adalat
and therefore, a consent decree was passed as prayed by
the parties. The aforesaid procedure adopted in the
instant case cannot be a ground to doubt the genuineness
of the consent decree.
5
2025 SCC OnLine Kar 22338
6
2022 SCC OnLine Kar 2008
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59068
WP No. 31459 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010691812026
7. From the aforesaid, it cannot be said that there was a
fraud committed and/or the counsel on behalf of the
plaintiff to mislead the Court to refer the matter to the
Lok Adalat. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat by
the Court and even the Lok Adalat was presided over by
the very same learned trial court Judge. Therefore, as
such, the High Court has committed a grave/serious error
in doubting the consent decree.
8. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that while
setting aside the consent decree passed in the Lok Adalat,
the High Court has observed in para 6 as under : (R.
Mahadevaiah case [R. Mahadevaiah v. Hemantha Kumar,
2020 SCC OnLine Kar 4994] , SCC OnLine Kar)
“6. Writ petition could not have been entertained in
view of the fact that OS No. 94 of 2006 was
referred to Lok Adalat and ordered to draw decree
on 18-8-2007 while referring to the Lok Adalat on
30-7-2007. However, compromise among the
parties and dates and events prima facie it is
evident that counsel for the plaintiff must have
mislead the trial court in obtaining decree on 18-8-
2007 with reference to referring the matter to Lok
Adalat read with the compromise and drawing up of
decree.”
9. Therefore, the High Court has observed that the
counsel for the plaintiff must have mislead the trial court
in obtaining the decree on 18-8-2007 with reference to
referring the matter to Lok Adalat read with the
compromise and drawing up of decree. On what basis
and/or the material, the High Court has observed so and
that too “prima facie”, cannot be appreciated by us.
Though, the High Court has commented about the counsel
for the plaintiff, however, the High Court has not at all
appreciated the fact that the application under Order 23
Rule 3/consent application was presented and signed by
the advocates for Defendants 1 and 2 also the parties,
who had also appeared before the learned trial court as
well as before the Lok Adalat. There are no allegations at
all against the counsel appearing on behalf of Defendants
1 and 2.
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59068
WP No. 31459 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010691812026
10. It is also to be noted that neither are there any
observations by the High Court that on submitting the
application under Order 23 Rule 3CPC before the learned
trial court and requesting for passing the consent decree,
Defendants 1 and 2 had objected to submitting the
application under Order 23 Rule 3/consent application in
which it was requested to pass a consent decree. It is to
be noted that in the application under Order 23 Rule
3CPC, it was further stated that Defendants 1 and 2 have
been paid the balance sum of Rs 70,000. It is not the
case on behalf of Defendants 1 and 2 that they have not
received the balance sale consideration of Rs 70,000 as
mentioned in the consent application/application under
Order 23 Rule 3CPC.
11. In view of the above, the High Court has committed a
grave/serious error in setting aside the consent decree
dated 18-8-2007 passed in the Lok Adalat, which was
presided over by the very learned trial court Judge. The
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
is unsustainable, both in law as well as on facts.
12. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and
order dated 30-11-2020 passed by the High Court in R.
Mahadevaiah v. Hemantha Kumar [R. Mahadevaiah v.
Hemantha Kumar, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 4994] is hereby
quashed and set aside. The consent decree passed by the
learned trial court passed in the Lok Adalat is hereby
restored.
13. Present appeal is allowed accordingly. However, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs."
(emphasis supplied)
12. Although it is the contention on behalf of the
petitioner that the impugned compromise decree is liable to be
interfered with on the ground that the said compromise was
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59068
WP No. 31459 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010691812026
recorded in the same order sheet as that of the suit and
reliance is placed on the coordinate Bench judgements of this
Court as noticed above, it is pertinent to note that in the
judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court relied upon on
behalf of the petitioner, the judgment of the Supreme Court in
2
the case of Hemantha Kumar has not been noticed. Having
regard to the legal position legal position as enunciated in the
2
case of Hemantha Kumar , the compromise recorded by the
Commercial Court is not liable to be interfered with solely on
the ground that the said compromise is recorded in the order
sheet of the suit.
13. With regard to the contention put forth on behalf of
the petitioners that although the suit was filed for recovery of a
sum of Rs.5,93,50,000/- and that under the compromise the
petitioners had undertaken to pay the respondent Nos.1 and 2
a sum of Rs.6,46,40,565/-, and four cheques have been given
each for the said sum of Rs.6,46,40,565/-, which cumulates to
a sum of Rs.25,85,62,260/- and that the amounts undertaken
to be repaid are shockingly disproportionate to the claim made
by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the suit, would also not aid the
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59068
WP No. 31459 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010691812026
case of the petitioners in view of the categorical stand of
respondent Nos.1 and 2 that only one cheque of a sum of
`
6,46,40,565/- was required to be realised out of the 4 cheques
that are the subject matter of the compromise petition. The
said aspect of the matter also appears to have been recorded in
the handwritten portion after clause 10 of the compromise
petition.
14. A perusal of the order sheet in Com.Ex.No.37/2026
would clearly indicate that the recovery of the money sought in
the said execution proceedings was a sum of Rs.6,77,28,671/-
`
which would necessarily mean that a sum of 6,46,40,565/-
together with interest was sought to be recovered from the
petitioners.
15. It is further forthcoming that the compromise was
recorded between the parties on 09.10.2025. The execution
petition was filed on 17.01.2026. Various stages of proceedings
were undertaken in the said execution proceedings. Com.
Miscellaneous No.15/2026 was filed under Order XXIII Rule 3-A
of the CPC on 17.03.2026 and the present writ petition is filed
on 03.10.2026.
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59068
WP No. 31459 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010691812026
16. It is clear from the time-lines indicated above that
although the compromise was entered on 09.10.2025 the
execution petition was filed after two months thereafter. The
miscellaneous petition to set aside the compromise was filed
three months after the initiation of the execution proceedings
which was more than 5 months after the compromise petition.
After dismissal of the miscellaneous petition, the present writ
petition is filed.
17. As already noticed above, the petitioners who were
arrayed as defendant Nos.1 to 6 before the Commercial Court
were educated and they were represented by counsel. The
petitioners as well as their counsel have signed the compromise
petition. There is no material placed on record to indicate that
any action has been initiated by the petitioners against their
counsel. In the absence of the same, the petitioners having
voluntarily agreed to the terms of the compromise, the relief
sought for by the petitioners in the present writ petition for
setting aside the compromise decree does not merit
consideration.
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59068
WP No. 31459 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010691812026
18. The conduct of the petitioners clearly indicate that
various proceedings have been initiated for the purpose of
resiling from the terms of the compromise. The reliefs sought
for in the present writ petition are clearly devoid of merit.
Since the present writ petition is filed only to delay the
recovery of the amounts agreed to be re-paid, the same is to
be dismissed by imposing appropriate costs.
19. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed
with costs of Rs.1,00,000/-, which shall be payable by
petitioner Nos.1 to 6 jointly/severally to respondent Nos.1 and
2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are permitted to recover the costs
as part of the proceedings for recovery of the amounts due
under the compromise.
20. Pending IAs., if any, stand disposed of.
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
ND
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4