Siemens Financial Services Private Limited INDIALAW LLP vs RV Glass Industries through Sole Proprietor Vijay Dhameeja — CARAP/458/2025
Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Section 11. Disposed: --DISPOSED OFF on 01st April 2026.
CNR: HCBM020300852025
e-Filing Number
19-09-2025
Filing Number
CARAP/30085/2025
Filing Date
20-Sep-2025
Registration No
CARAP/458/2025
Registration Date
13-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
APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
Original
Decision Date
01-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
--DISPOSED OFF
Last updated 07-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Siemens Financial Services Private Limited INDIALAW LLP
Respondent(s)
-
1.RV Glass Industries through Sole Proprietor Vijay Dhameeja
-
2.Ritu Dhameeja
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
01-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF
The Bombay High Court allowed Siemens Financial Services' arbitration petition against R V Glass Industries and appointed Ms. Aanchal Singhania as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from their February 2024 agreement. The court found that interim measures already granted (machinery possession and sale by court receiver) justified proceeding with arbitration, with costs to be borne equally by both parties, subject to the final arbitral award. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Feb-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF
-
03-Nov-2025
Fresh Matters Auto Listed
Hon'ble Shri Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan
-
29-Sep-2025
Hon'ble Shri Justice Somasekhar SundaresanView PDF
-
29-Sep-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Sep-2025
Case filed
Registration No. CARAP/458/2025
The Bombay High Court allowed Siemens Financial Services' arbitration petition against R V Glass Industries and appointed Ms. Aanchal Singhania as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from their February 2024 agreement. The court found that interim measures already granted (machinery possession and sale by court receiver) justified proceeding with arbitration, with costs to be borne equally by both parties, subject to the final arbitral award. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts