Shriram Finance Limited vs Robin P. Baby Advocate - MANJU MANOHAR, SANAL KUMAR K P — 159/2025

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act - 1996 Section Section 9 sub clause ii. Disposed: Uncontested--CLOSED on 29th April 2026.

MA(Arb) - MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (ARBITRATION)

CNR: KLKT010042572025

Case disposed

Filing Number

700/2025

Filing Date

20-12-2025

Registration No

159/2025

Registration Date

20-12-2025

Court

Principal District & Sessions Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

Decision Date

29th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--CLOSED

Acts & Sections

ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT - 1996 Section Section 9 sub clause ii
IA/1/2025 Classification : Application For Attachment Section Shriram Finance LimitedRobin P. Baby

Petitioner(s)

Shriram Finance Limited

Adv. LITHIN THOMAS

Respondent(s)

Robin P. Baby Advocate - MANJU MANOHAR, SANAL KUMAR K P

Manju Mol P.M

Adv. MANJU MANOHAR,SANAL KUMAR K P

Vijo V

Adv. MANJU MANOHAR,SANAL KUMAR K P

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

29-04-2026

Disposed

24-04-2026

Call On

16-04-2026

For Reports

04-04-2026

Referred to Mediator

30-03-2026

Call On

Final Orders / Judgements

29-04-2026
Order

Summary: The Principal District Judge of Kottayam closed the petition filed by Shriram Finance Limited under Section 9(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, noting that arbitration proceedings had been initiated between the parties. The court directed that any attachment of the scheduled property would remain subject to the final decision of the Arbitrator, thereby preserving the rights of both parties pending the arbitration outcome. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Principal District Judge of Kottayam closed the petition filed by Shriram Finance Limited under Section 9(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, noting that arbitration proceedings had been initiated between the parties. The court directed that any attachment of the scheduled property would remain subject to the final decision of the Arbitrator, thereby preserving the rights of both parties pending the arbitration outcome. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Principal District & Sessions Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case