Sunil Hitech Engineers Limited Anchorstone Legal vs Larsen and Toubro Limited — HCBM20061172026

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. Next hearing: 01st April 2026.

Next hearing 01-Apr-2026

CNR: HCBM020061172026

e-Filing Number

17-02-2026

Filing Number

IA/6117/2026

Filing Date

18-Feb-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Original

Last updated 05-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sunil Hitech Engineers Limited Anchorstone Legal

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Larsen and Toubro Limited

Case History

  1. 01-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

    SUMMARY: The Bombay High Court allowed the Commercial Arbitration Application filed by Sunil Hitech Engineers Limited (in liquidation) against Larson & Toubro Limited. Justice S.C. Gupte, a former High Court Judge, was appointed as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from contracts dated November 25, 2009, and a Letter of Intent dated January 6, 2000. The court found prima facie evidence of an arbitration agreement and directed both parties to equally bear arbitral costs, with all substantive contentions on merits reserved for the Arbitral Tribunal's consideration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Arbp-For Hearing And Final Disposal U/S 11

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

  5. 18-Feb-2026

    Case filed

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY: The Bombay High Court allowed the Commercial Arbitration Application filed by Sunil Hitech Engineers Limited (in liquidation) against Larson & Toubro Limited. Justice S.C. Gupte, a former High Court Judge, was appointed as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from contracts dated November 25, 2009, and a Letter of Intent dated January 6, 2000. The court found prima facie evidence of an arbitration agreement and directed both parties to equally bear arbitral costs, with all substantive contentions on merits reserved for the Arbitral Tribunal's consideration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case