ITI Finance Ltd Rep by Branch Manager Arjun Sai.K.M. vs Dhanil.C.K. — 70/2026

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act1996\ Section 9 (2). Disposed: Contested--CLOSED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

MA(Arb) - MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (ARBITRATION)

CNR: KLPK010005462026

Filing Number

70/2026

Filing Date

06-Feb-2026

Registration No

70/2026

Registration Date

07-Feb-2026

Court

District And Sessions Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Palakkad

Judge

1-Principal District & Sessions Judge

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--CLOSED

Last updated 30-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Conciliation Act1996\ Section 9 (2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ITI Finance Ltd Rep by Branch Manager Arjun Sai.K.M.

    Adv. KAILAS K A

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Dhanil.C.K.

  2. 2.Dhajeesh.C.K.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Final OrderView PDF

    Case 70/2026 Summary: The District Court of Palakkad granted ITI Finance Ltd.'s arbitration application under Section 9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against respondents Dhanil C.K. and Dhajeesh C.K. The court confirmed that an Advocate Commissioner had successfully seized a vehicle and handed it over to the petitioner as directed in an earlier interim order dated 12.02.2026, resulting in closure of the application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    For Steps

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  5. 12-Feb-2026

    OrderView PDF

  6. 12-Feb-2026

    OrderView PDF

  7. 12-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 06-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 70/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 70/2026 Summary: The District Court of Palakkad granted ITI Finance Ltd.'s arbitration application under Section 9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against respondents Dhanil C.K. and Dhajeesh C.K. The court confirmed that an Advocate Commissioner had successfully seized a vehicle and handed it over to the petitioner as directed in an earlier interim order dated 12.02.2026, resulting in closure of the application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case