JAGRATI TRADE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER SURANA AND CHOUDHURY vs TIRUPATI VINCOM PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — APOT/60/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Act ,1908 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 13th May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCO0012462026
e-Filing Number
01-04-2026
Filing Number
APOT /61/2026
Filing Date
06-04-2026
Registration No
APOT /60/2026
Registration Date
06-04-2026
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA , HON'BLE JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA , HON'BLE JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY
Bench Type
Division Bench
Judicial Branch
APPEAL SECTION
Decision Date
13th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
JAGRATI TRADE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER SURANA AND CHOUDHURY
JAGDISH SARDA
Adv. AASISH CHOUDHURY
Respondent(s)
TIRUPATI VINCOM PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS
James Glendye and Co Private Limited
Orbit Towers Private Limited
Dileep Singh Mehta
Damani Infracon Private Limited
Prakash Damani
Deepak Bhargava
Rajni Bhargava
Vaibhav Bhargava
Gayatri Bhargava
Monisha Bhargava
Smriti Raina
Megha Saigal
The Calcutta Phototype Company Limited
CSP Investment and Financial Services Private Limited
Shurya Packaging Private Limited
Box and Carlton Private limited
Aristo Texcon Private Limited
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA , HON'BLE JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY
SPECIALLY ASSIGNED MATTERS
SPECIALLY ASSIGNED MATTERS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-05-2026 | SPECIALLY ASSIGNED MATTERS | |
| 13-05-2026 | SPECIALLY ASSIGNED MATTERS |
Orders
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the appellant's Section 8 application (Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) to refer a share dispute to arbitration, holding that the interlinked causes of action against multiple defendants—including non-signatories to the arbitration agreement—cannot be bifurcated. The court confirmed that since serious fraud allegations connected all defendants in a single transaction and relief was sought jointly against all, the entire suit must remain in civil court rather than being partially arbitrated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the appellant's Section 8 application (Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) to refer a share dispute to arbitration, holding that the interlinked causes of action against multiple defendants—including non-signatories to the arbitration agreement—cannot be bifurcated. The court confirmed that since serious fraud allegations connected all defendants in a single transaction and relief was sought jointly against all, the entire suit must remain in civil court rather than being partially arbitrated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts