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.

Next hearing 12-Jun-2026

CNR: HCBM010190192026

e-Filing Number

11-04-2026

Filing Number

ARA/11077/2026

Filing Date

16-Apr-2026

Registration No

ARA/29/2026

Registration Date

04-May-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

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Section 37

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S. ARISTONE BUILDERS

    Adv. LAW GLOBAL

  2. 2.SHANKAR KUMAR JHA

    Adv. JHA SUBHASH CHANDRA

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.BRIJIESH DEVNARAYAN SINGH

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

Case History

  1. 12-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 12-Jun-2026

    At 3.00 P.M.

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan

  3. 05-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Somasekhar SundaresanView PDF

    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.

  4. 05-May-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 16-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. ARA/29/2026

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.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case