Laxrni Venkat Bahinala KAILAS SHALIKRAM SURVE vs Pratham Varadvinayak Developers LLP — ARBP/514/2025

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Section 9. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 15th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020109992025

e-Filing Number

04-04-2025

Filing Number

ARBP/10999/2025

Filing Date

05-Apr-2025

Registration No

ARBP/514/2025

Registration Date

15-Oct-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

Bench Type

Single

Category

ARBITRATION ( 4 )

Sub-Category

Interim Relief ( 102 )

Judicial Branch

Original

Decision Date

15-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 25-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Section 9

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Laxrni Venkat Bahinala KAILAS SHALIKRAM SURVE

  2. 2.Seetabai Bhikaji Dalvi

    Adv. KAILAS SHALIKRAM SURVE

  3. 3.Shreyans Amrutlal Bhansali

    Adv. KAILAS SHALIKRAM SURVE

  4. 4.Devendra Gopal Singh

    Adv. KAILAS SHALIKRAM SURVE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Pratham Varadvinayak Developers LLP

  2. 2.Azad Nagar Shiv Sagar Co operative Housing Society Limited

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

    The Bombay High Court disposed of the arbitration petition as infructuous after both parties amicably resolved their disputes. The respondent-developer paid the petitioner a demand draft for arrears of transit rent, making the arbitration proceeding unnecessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Apr-2026

    For Settlement / Consent Terms

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  4. 30-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

  5. 30-Mar-2026

    For Settlement / Consent Terms

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

  7. 17-Mar-2026

    For Settlement / Consent Terms

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  8. 20-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

  9. 20-Feb-2026

    For Settlement / Consent Terms

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  10. 18-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

  11. 18-Feb-2026

    Arbp-For Hearing And Final Disposal U/S 9

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  12. 18-Nov-2025

    Ad-Interim Relief- Section Section 37/ Section 34

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan

  13. 04-Nov-2025

    Ad-Interim Relief- Section Section 37/ Section 34

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan

  14. 08-Oct-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Somasekhar SundaresanView PDF

  15. 08-Oct-2025

    Ad-Interim Relief- Section Section 37/ Section 34

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan

  16. 03-Oct-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Somasekhar SundaresanView PDF

  17. 03-Oct-2025

    Ad-Interim Relief- Section Section 37/ Section 34

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan

  18. 01-Oct-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Somasekhar SundaresanView PDF

  19. 19-Sep-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Somasekhar SundaresanView PDF

  20. 08-Sep-2025

    Registrar(os)/Prothonotary and Sr. MasterView PDF

  21. 14-Aug-2025

    Circulation Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan

  22. 08-Aug-2025

    Shri. A. H. Laddhad(Prothonotary Senior Master)View PDF

  23. 28-Jul-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Somasekhar SundaresanView PDF

  24. 07-Jul-2025

    For Direction

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan

  25. 12-Jun-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Somasekhar SundaresanView PDF

  26. 12-Jun-2025

    For Direction

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan

  27. 30-Apr-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Somasekhar SundaresanView PDF

  28. 30-Apr-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  29. 05-Apr-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. ARBP/514/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court disposed of the arbitration petition as infructuous after both parties amicably resolved their disputes. The respondent-developer paid the petitioner a demand draft for arrears of transit rent, making the arbitration proceeding unnecessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case