D Y PATIL INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL vs Ashutosh Purani — CARAP/234/2026

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Section 11. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 05th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020125502026

e-Filing Number

08-04-2026

Filing Number

CARAP/12550/2026

Filing Date

08-Apr-2026

Registration No

CARAP/234/2026

Registration Date

28-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla

Bench Type

Single

Category

ARBITRATION ( 4 )

Sub-Category

APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

Original

Decision Date

05-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.D Y PATIL INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL

    Adv. Steenson

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ashutosh Purani

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze PooniwallaView PDF

    The High Court of Bombay appointed Mr. Yash Momaya as arbitrator to resolve disputes between D Y Patil International School and Ashutosh Purani under their July 2024 Service Agreement. The court found that the agreement contained a valid arbitration clause, disputes had arisen, and the applicant properly invoked arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, despite the respondent's non-agreement to arbitrator appointment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-May-2026

    Arbp-For Hearing And Final Disposal U/S 11

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla

  4. 08-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CARAP/234/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Bombay appointed Mr. Yash Momaya as arbitrator to resolve disputes between D Y Patil International School and Ashutosh Purani under their July 2024 Service Agreement. The court found that the agreement contained a valid arbitration clause, disputes had arisen, and the applicant properly invoked arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, despite the respondent's non-agreement to arbitrator appointment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case