MR. RAJENDRA ARMUGAM PILLAY vs MR. RATANRAJ ARMUGAM PILLAY — IA/3019/2026

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Section 11. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 04th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010135992026

e-Filing Number

17-03-2026

Filing Number

IA/7839/2026

Filing Date

17-Mar-2026

Registration No

IA/3019/2026

Registration Date

17-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan

Bench Type

Single

Category

ARBITRATION ( 4 )

Sub-Category

APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

04-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Section 11

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MR. RAJENDRA ARMUGAM PILLAY

    Adv. Shon Gadgil

  2. 2.MRS. SELVI RAJENDRA PILLAY

    Adv. GADGIL SHON DEEPAK

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MR. RATANRAJ ARMUGAM PILLAY

  2. 2.MRS. UMA RATANRAJ PILLAY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Somasekhar SundaresanView PDF

    Case Summary: IA/3019/2026 The Bombay High Court modified its December 22, 2025 order regarding the arbitration dispute between Rajendra Armugam Pillay and Ratanraj Armugam Pillay. With both parties' consent, the court clarified that the arbitrator it had previously appointed would act as a sole arbitrator (rather than one member of a three-member tribunal) to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-May-2026

    Interim Application

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan

  4. 18-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Somasekhar SundaresanView PDF

  5. 18-Apr-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. IA/3019/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: IA/3019/2026 The Bombay High Court modified its December 22, 2025 order regarding the arbitration dispute between Rajendra Armugam Pillay and Ratanraj Armugam Pillay. With both parties' consent, the court clarified that the arbitrator it had previously appointed would act as a sole arbitrator (rather than one member of a three-member tribunal) to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case