M/S. ARISTONE BUILDERS vs SANTOSH CHATURBHUJ SAMAL Advocate - TARUN, ( CAVEAT AND V.P. FILED ) — ARA/29/2026

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Section 37. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.

CNR: HCBM010190192026

Next Hearing

12th June 2026

e-Filing Number

11-04-2026

Filing Number

ARA/11077/2026

Filing Date

16-04-2026

Registration No

ARA/29/2026

Registration Date

04-05-2026

Judge

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN

Coram

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN

Bench Type

Single

Category

ARBITRATION ( 4 )

Sub-Category

Arbitration Appeals - Single Bench ( 106 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Section 37

Petitioner(s)

M/S. ARISTONE BUILDERS

Adv. LAW GLOBAL

SHANKAR KUMAR JHA

Adv. JHA SUBHASH CHANDRA

Respondent(s)

SANTOSH CHATURBHUJ SAMAL Advocate - TARUN, ( CAVEAT AND V.P. FILED )

BRIJIESH DEVNARAYAN SINGH

Adv. TARUN,( CAVEAT AND V.P. FILED )

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN

05-05-2026

AT 3.00 P.M.

12-06-2026

AT 3.00 P.M.

Orders

05-05-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN

Case Summary: ARA/29/2026 The Bombay High Court adjourned the arbitration appeal challenging a Section 9 order on allegations of backdating. The court granted the respondents liberty to file a reply within three weeks, with a rejoinder permitted within one week thereafter, and stood over the matter to June 12, 2026. No intervention was made in the impugned order, leaving discretion with the arbitral tribunal to modify interlocutory relief as necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: ARA/29/2026 The Bombay High Court adjourned the arbitration appeal challenging a Section 9 order on allegations of backdating. The court granted the respondents liberty to file a reply within three weeks, with a rejoinder permitted within one week thereafter, and stood over the matter to June 12, 2026. No intervention was made in the impugned order, leaving discretion with the arbitral tribunal to modify interlocutory relief as necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case