TATA CAPITAL LIMITED ARUNIKA DUTTA vs SP TRADING AND ANR. — AP-COM/199/2026

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act ,1996 Section 11. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 27th April 2026.

CNR: WBCHCO0009432026

CASE DISPOSED

e-Filing Number

12-03-2026

Filing Number

AP-COM /189/2026

Filing Date

12-03-2026

Registration No

AP-COM /199/2026

Registration Date

12-03-2026

Judge

HON'BLE JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH

Coram

HON'BLE JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

GROUP B (CIVIL MATTERS) ( 2 )

Sub-Category

Arbitration ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

CURRENT RECORD DEPARTMENT

Decision Date

27th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Conciliation Act ,1996 Section 11

Petitioner(s)

TATA CAPITAL LIMITED ARUNIKA DUTTA

Respondent(s)

SP TRADING AND ANR.

Biswajit Saha

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH

30-03-2026

NEW MOTIONS (SECTION 11)

27-04-2026

NEW MOTIONS (SECTION 11)

06-04-2026

NEW MOTIONS (SECTION 11)

01-04-2026

NEW MOTIONS (SECTION 11)

31-03-2026

NEW MOTIONS (SECTION 11)

Orders

13-04-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
27-04-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH

The Calcutta High Court dismissed Tata Capital Limited's petition to constitute an arbitral tribunal against SP Trading for loan default, holding that the mandatory requirement of serving an arbitration notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was not properly complied with—the notice to respondent no. 2 was returned undelivered. However, the court granted liberty to the petitioner to file fresh proceedings after proper service of notice in accordance with law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Calcutta High Court dismissed Tata Capital Limited's petition to constitute an arbitral tribunal against SP Trading for loan default, holding that the mandatory requirement of serving an arbitration notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was not properly complied with—the notice to respondent no. 2 was returned undelivered. However, the court granted liberty to the petitioner to file fresh proceedings after proper service of notice in accordance with law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Arbitration and Conciliation Act ,1996 All acts →

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case