BHARAT RAO vs SURENDRA SHAH Advocate - Jitendra Jain — ARBAP/116/2026
Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Section 11. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 17th April 2026.
CNR: HCBM020091102026
e-Filing Number
11-03-2026
Filing Number
ARBAP/9110/2026
Filing Date
12-Mar-2026
Registration No
ARBAP/116/2026
Registration Date
26-Mar-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Bench Type
Single
Category
ARBITRATION ( 4 )
Sub-Category
APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
Original
Decision Date
17-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OFF
Last updated 27-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.BHARAT RAO
Adv. Sanket Mungale
Respondent(s)
-
1.SURENDRA SHAH Advocate - Jitendra Jain
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF
The High Court of Bombay appointed Mr. Swanand R. Ganoo, an Advocate, as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between Bharat Rao and Surendra Shah arising from a Partnership Deed dated 13 January 2009. Both parties agreed to a single arbitrator rather than a tribunal, and accepted the proposed nominee. The arbitrator must submit a statutory disclosure statement within 2 weeks and parties shall share arbitrator fees equally as prescribed under the Bombay High Court Rules, 2018. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Apr-2026
For Circulation
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne
-
12-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. ARBAP/116/2026
The High Court of Bombay appointed Mr. Swanand R. Ganoo, an Advocate, as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between Bharat Rao and Surendra Shah arising from a Partnership Deed dated 13 January 2009. Both parties agreed to a single arbitrator rather than a tribunal, and accepted the proposed nominee. The arbitrator must submit a statutory disclosure statement within 2 weeks and parties shall share arbitrator fees equally as prescribed under the Bombay High Court Rules, 2018. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts