GOUTAM ROY ARANYAK SAHA vs TODI INVESTOR (INDIA) PVT. LTD. — CO/1633/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 16th June 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0218482026
Filing Number
CO/1640/2026
Filing Date
14-May-2026
Registration No
CO/1633/2026
Registration Date
14-May-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Justice Om Narayan Rai
Coram
Hon'ble Justice Om Narayan Rai
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
GROUP B (CIVIL MATTERS) ( 2 )
Sub-Category
Miscellaneous ( 57 )
Judicial Branch
RULE SECTION
Decision Date
16-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Last updated 18-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.GOUTAM ROY ARANYAK SAHA
Respondent(s)
-
1.TODI INVESTOR (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Jun-2026
Hon'ble Justice Om Narayan RaiView PDF
The court disposed of the revisional application challenging an arbitrator's March 20, 2026 order under Section 16 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The court held that since an arbitral award had been passed, the petitioner's proper remedy was to challenge the award under Section 34 of the Act, not pursue the revisional application. All points were left open for the petitioner to raise before the appropriate forum. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Jun-2026
Upgraded Motion
Hon'ble Justice Om Narayan Rai
-
16-Jun-2026
Upgraded Motion
Hon'ble Justice Om Narayan Rai
-
14-Jun-2026
Upgraded Motion
Hon'ble Justice Om Narayan Rai
-
08-Jun-2026
Hon'ble Justice Om Narayan RaiView PDF
-
08-Jun-2026
New Motion 1
Hon'ble Justice Om Narayan Rai
-
22-May-2026
New Motion - 2
Hon'ble Justice Om Narayan Rai
-
21-May-2026
New Motion - 2
Hon'ble Justice Om Narayan Rai
-
20-May-2026
New Motion - 2
Hon'ble Justice Om Narayan Rai
-
19-May-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
14-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CO/1633/2026
The court disposed of the revisional application challenging an arbitrator's March 20, 2026 order under Section 16 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The court held that since an arbitral award had been passed, the petitioner's proper remedy was to challenge the award under Section 34 of the Act, not pursue the revisional application. All points were left open for the petitioner to raise before the appropriate forum. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts