Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co Ltd Represented by its Senior Executive Legal Mr Sabu K vs Sabir EC — 83/2026
Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 9 (ii) (a) (b) and (c). Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 12th June 2026.
MA (Arb) - MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (ARBITRATION)
CNR: KLML010011282026
Filing Number
82/2026
Filing Date
07-Mar-2026
Registration No
83/2026
Registration Date
19-Mar-2026
Court
District and Sessions Court, Manjeri / Rent Control Appellate Authority,
Judge
1-District and Sessions Judge / Rent Control Appellate Authority Manjeri
Decision Date
12-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Last updated 26-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co Ltd Represented by its Senior Executive Legal Mr Sabu K
Adv. Krishnadas
Respondent(s)
-
1.Sabir EC
-
2.Aboobacker Sideeq
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
12-Jun-2026
OrderView PDF
Case Summary: M.A (A) No. 83/2026 The District Judge, Manjeri closed Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company's miscellaneous application seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to attach and repossess a vehicle from respondents Sabir E.C. and Aboobacker Sideeq. The court found the relief already achieved—the vehicle had been successfully repossessed—making the application moot, though the Commissioner's counsel sought additional remuneration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
12-Jun-2026
Disposed
District and Sessions Judge / Rent Control Appellate Authority Manjeri
-
07-Apr-2026
For commission report
District and Sessions Judge / Rent Control Appellate Authority Manjeri
-
23-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 83/2026
Case Summary: M.A (A) No. 83/2026 The District Judge, Manjeri closed Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company's miscellaneous application seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to attach and repossess a vehicle from respondents Sabir E.C. and Aboobacker Sideeq. The court found the relief already achieved—the vehicle had been successfully repossessed—making the application moot, though the Commissioner's counsel sought additional remuneration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts