Sriram finance vs Madhusoodhanan.K, — 606/2025

Case under Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996\ Section 9. Disposed: Uncontested--Closed on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

OP(Arb) - ORIGINAL PETITION (ARBITRATION)

CNR: KLKN010048602025

Filing Number

26347/2025

Filing Date

16-Nov-2025

Registration No

606/2025

Registration Date

08-Dec-2025

Court

District Court and Sessions Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery

Judge

3-2nd Additional District Judge

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Closed

Last updated 25-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996\ Section 9

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sriram finance

    Adv. N K Pratap

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Madhusoodhanan.K,

  2. 2.V.C.Rajamani,

  3. 3.Suresh Babu.V.C,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Additional District Judge-II at Thalassery closed an arbitration petition filed by Shriram Finance Limited against respondents regarding a vehicle recovery matter. The court found that since the subject vehicle could not be traced despite efforts by the Advocate Commissioner, there was no purpose in continuing the petition and accordingly dismissed it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    2nd Additional District Judge

  4. 26-Feb-2026

    For commission report

    2nd Additional District Judge

  5. 21-Feb-2026

    For reports

    2nd Additional District Judge

  6. 29-Jan-2026

    For commission report

    2nd Additional District Judge

  7. 10-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 16-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 606/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Additional District Judge-II at Thalassery closed an arbitration petition filed by Shriram Finance Limited against respondents regarding a vehicle recovery matter. The court found that since the subject vehicle could not be traced despite efforts by the Advocate Commissioner, there was no purpose in continuing the petition and accordingly dismissed it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case