AXIOMA BUILDERS MAYANK ROY vs UTTAM DEY — AP/6/2026
Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act ,1996 Section 11(6). Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 16th June 2026.
CNR: WBCHCJ0019762026
Filing Number
AP/6/2026
Filing Date
15-May-2026
Registration No
AP/6/2026
Registration Date
18-May-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
Coram
Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
GROUP B (CIVIL MATTERS) ( 2 )
Sub-Category
Arbitration ( 2 )
Judicial Branch
RULE SECTION
Decision Date
16-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Last updated 18-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.AXIOMA BUILDERS MAYANK ROY
Respondent(s)
-
1.UTTAM DEY
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Jun-2026
Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi BhattacharyyaView PDF
The Calcutta High Court appointed Mr. Sudipto Kumar Majumder as sole arbitrator to resolve a dispute between Axioma Builders and Uttam Dey arising from a June 2023 development agreement. The court found the respondent deliberately avoided service despite notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and proceeded ex parte, determining the dispute was arbitrable under Article XIII of the agreement and fit for arbitration after more than one month elapsed without respondent's response. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Jun-2026
Arbitration
Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
-
15-Jun-2026
Arbitration
Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
-
08-Jun-2026
Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi BhattacharyyaView PDF
-
08-Jun-2026
Arbitration
Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
-
21-May-2026
Arbitration
Hon'ble Justice Arindam Mukherjee
-
20-May-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
15-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. AP/6/2026
The Calcutta High Court appointed Mr. Sudipto Kumar Majumder as sole arbitrator to resolve a dispute between Axioma Builders and Uttam Dey arising from a June 2023 development agreement. The court found the respondent deliberately avoided service despite notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and proceeded ex parte, determining the dispute was arbitrable under Article XIII of the agreement and fit for arbitration after more than one month elapsed without respondent's response. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts