M/S HELLO VERIFY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs M/S HAPPIEST MINDS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Advocate - UDAY SHANKAR — 478/2025
Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section SEC29A. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 06th March 2026.
Com.A.A. - Commerical Arbitration Application
CNR: KABC170036292025
Filing Number
478/2025
Filing Date
21-11-2025
Registration No
478/2025
Registration Date
21-11-2025
Court
COMMERCIAL COURT,BENGALURU
Judge
1389-CCH-83 LXXXII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
Decision Date
06th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M/S HELLO VERIFY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Adv. LOMESH KIRAN N
Respondent(s)
M/S HAPPIEST MINDS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Advocate - UDAY SHANKAR
Hearing History
Judge: 1389-CCH-83 LXXXII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
Disposed
ORDERS
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 24-02-2026 | ORDERS |
| 29-01-2026 | HEARING |
| 17-01-2026 | HEARING |
| 15-12-2025 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The Bengaluru Commercial Court allowed Hello Verify India's petition to extend the arbitration tribunal's mandate by 2 months under Section 29-A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court found sufficient cause for extension despite the applicant's delays in filing the claim statement and the extension petition, reasoning that case complexity and respondent's objections contributed to proceedings not completing within the statutory 12-month period (already extended by 6 months). Both parties shall bear their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Bengaluru Commercial Court allowed Hello Verify India's petition to extend the arbitration tribunal's mandate by 2 months under Section 29-A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court found sufficient cause for extension despite the applicant's delays in filing the claim statement and the extension petition, reasoning that case complexity and respondent's objections contributed to proceedings not completing within the statutory 12-month period (already extended by 6 months). Both parties shall bear their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts