Sundaram Finance Ltd Rep By Authorized Officer Krishna Prasad vs Thahira Sherin — 296/2025
Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 17(2). Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED on 07th April 2026.
MA(Arb) - MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (ARBITRATION)
CNR: KLKK010052652025
Filing Number
5866/2025
Filing Date
04-10-2025
Registration No
296/2025
Registration Date
27-10-2025
Court
District Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode
Judge
5-Additional District and Sessions Judge-V
Decision Date
07th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISPOSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sundaram Finance Ltd Rep By Authorized Officer Krishna Prasad
Adv. Noushad Kallada
Respondent(s)
Thahira Sherin
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Additional District and Sessions Judge-V
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
For Steps
Call on
Call on
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 28-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 16-03-2026 | For Steps |
| 06-03-2026 | Call on |
| 17-02-2026 | Call on |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Sundaram Finance Ltd v. Thahira Sherin (296/2025) The Additional District Judge dismissed Sundaram Finance's arbitration application after finding the arbitrator's appointment valid. The parties had contractually agreed that disputes would be decided by an arbitrator appointed by MCCI (an independent institution), which the court held was distinguishable from unilateral appointment. The court's jurisdiction under Section 17(2) was limited to executing the interim order, and since possession of the vehicle had already been taken and handed over to the petitioner through the appointed Advocate Commissioner, the application was closed, preserving the parties' rights to pursue disputes before the arbitrator. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Sundaram Finance Ltd v. Thahira Sherin (296/2025) The Additional District Judge dismissed Sundaram Finance's arbitration application after finding the arbitrator's appointment valid. The parties had contractually agreed that disputes would be decided by an arbitrator appointed by MCCI (an independent institution), which the court held was distinguishable from unilateral appointment. The court's jurisdiction under Section 17(2) was limited to executing the interim order, and since possession of the vehicle had already been taken and handed over to the petitioner through the appointed Advocate Commissioner, the application was closed, preserving the parties' rights to pursue disputes before the arbitrator. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts