SATBIR SINGH vs ANURADHA KUMAR — 456/2025
Case under Recovery of Money Section order37. Status: Misc./ Appearance. Next hearing: 22nd August 2026.
CS DJ ADJ - CIVIL SUIT FOR DJ ADJ
CNR: DLSW010039412025
Next Hearing
22nd August 2026
e-Filing Number
03-05-2025
Filing Number
1892/2025
Filing Date
05-05-2025
Registration No
456/2025
Registration Date
07-05-2025
Court
District and Session Judge, South-West DWK
Judge
424-District Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SATBIR SINGH
Adv. Prince
Respondent(s)
ANURADHA KUMAR
RAJESH KUMAR
HEMANT KUMAR
MANASWANI
MOHD SHAMIM
Hearing History
Judge: 424-District Judge
Misc./ Appearance
Order
Order
Order
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-06-2026 | Misc./ Appearance |
| 24-03-2026 | Order |
| 19-03-2026 | Order |
| 14-03-2026 | Order |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 456/2025 Outcome: All five applications filed by defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC have been dismissed. Satbir Singh sued five defendants (Anuradha Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Hemant Kumar, and two others) for Rs. 35 lacs, alleging cheating and misappropriation of funds from their joint homestay business "The Orchard." Defendants argued the dispute should be referred to arbitration per an arbitration clause in the partnership deed and that non-signatory defendants cannot be parties. The court ruled the suit involves cheating/breach of trust claims lying outside the arbitration agreement's scope and implicates non-parties to the deed, rendering arbitration referral inapplicable. The case is listed for further proceedings on 02.06.2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 456/2025 Outcome: All five applications filed by defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC have been dismissed. Satbir Singh sued five defendants (Anuradha Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Hemant Kumar, and two others) for Rs. 35 lacs, alleging cheating and misappropriation of funds from their joint homestay business "The Orchard." Defendants argued the dispute should be referred to arbitration per an arbitration clause in the partnership deed and that non-signatory defendants cannot be parties. The court ruled the suit involves cheating/breach of trust claims lying outside the arbitration agreement's scope and implicates non-parties to the deed, rendering arbitration referral inapplicable. The case is listed for further proceedings on 02.06.2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts