ADITYA ENTERPRISES vs KHERNAGAR MAYUR COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD — CARAP/282/2026

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Section 11. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020100562026

e-Filing Number

18-03-2026

Filing Number

CARAP/10054/2026

Filing Date

18-Mar-2026

Registration No

CARAP/282/2026

Registration Date

01-Jun-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

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Section 11

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ADITYA ENTERPRISES

    Adv. PRITESH BURAD ASSOCIATES

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KHERNAGAR MAYUR COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

    The Bombay High Court appointed Ms. Alpana Ghone as sole arbitrator to resolve disputes between Aditya Enterprises and Khernagar Mayur Cooperative Housing Society arising from a Development Agreement dated May 5, 2008. The court converted the Section 9 petition into a Section 17 application to be decided by the arbitral tribunal, while clarifying that Respondent No.2 (the developer) was not bound by the arbitration agreement and could challenge any impleadment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CARAP/282/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court appointed Ms. Alpana Ghone as sole arbitrator to resolve disputes between Aditya Enterprises and Khernagar Mayur Cooperative Housing Society arising from a Development Agreement dated May 5, 2008. The court converted the Section 9 petition into a Section 17 application to be decided by the arbitral tribunal, while clarifying that Respondent No.2 (the developer) was not bound by the arbitration agreement and could challenge any impleadment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case