MAHADEVA vs M/S ARATTUKULAM DEVELOPERS Advocate - Siddharth Suman — 17/2020
Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 34. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 10th March 2026.
Com.A.P. - Commercial Arbitration Appeal
CNR: KABC170080552020
Filing Number
17/2020
Filing Date
19-02-2020
Registration No
17/2020
Registration Date
19-02-2020
Court
COMMERCIAL COURT,BENGALURU
Judge
1477-CCH-86 LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MAHADEVA
Adv. RAVINDRANATH B
KAVITHA
SHIRISH GOWDA
CHETHAN GOWDA
Respondent(s)
M/S ARATTUKULAM DEVELOPERS Advocate - Siddharth Suman
RAGHAVENDRA RAO G
Hearing History
Judge: 1477-CCH-86 LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
Disposed
JUDGMENTS
JUDGMENTS
ORDERS
ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 06-03-2026 | JUDGMENTS |
| 28-02-2026 | JUDGMENTS |
| 18-02-2026 | ORDERS |
| 13-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Bengaluru Commercial Court dismissed a petition seeking to set aside an arbitral award in a Joint Development Agreement dispute. The court held that the arbitrator properly awarded Rs. 1,28,925/- monthly compensation for 45% project deficiency during July 2017 to May 2019, finding the developer liable for delays since the 15-month completion period should be calculated from plan sanction (February 2016), not the agreement date, and governmental delays do not excuse the developer's performance obligations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Bengaluru Commercial Court dismissed a petition seeking to set aside an arbitral award in a Joint Development Agreement dispute. The court held that the arbitrator properly awarded Rs. 1,28,925/- monthly compensation for 45% project deficiency during July 2017 to May 2019, finding the developer liable for delays since the 15-month completion period should be calculated from plan sanction (February 2016), not the agreement date, and governmental delays do not excuse the developer's performance obligations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts