IDFC FIRST BANK LTD vs SK SOYEL — 8156/2024

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 9. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed

MISCCASE - MISCELLANEOUS CASE

CNR: WBCC010097362024

Filing Number

18445/2024

Filing Date

12-Nov-2024

Registration No

8156/2024

Registration Date

12-Nov-2024

Court

City Civil Court, Calcutta

Judge

2-LD Judge 2nd Bench

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 9

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.IDFC FIRST BANK LTD

    Adv. Sudip Mondal

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SK SOYEL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court dismissed IDFC FIRST BANK LTD's miscellaneous case for non-prosecution under Section 9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The 90-day statutory period for initiating arbitration proceedings had long elapsed with no evidence of the petitioner's attempt to commence arbitration, and the petitioner failed to appear in court, rendering the case infructuous. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-May-2026

    Disposed

    LD Judge 2nd Bench

  4. 14-Mar-2026

    Sr/Ad/Appearence

    LD Judge 2nd Bench

  5. 26-Sep-2025

    Sr/Ad/Appearence

    LD Judge 2nd Bench

  6. 17-May-2025

    Sr/Ad/Appearence

    LD Judge 2nd Bench

  7. 15-Feb-2025

    Interlocatory OrderView PDF

  8. 15-Feb-2025

    Sr/Ad/Appearence

    LD Judge 2nd Bench

  9. 18-Nov-2024

    Interlocatory OrderView PDF

  10. 18-Nov-2024

    Sr/Ad/Appearence

    LD Judge 2nd Bench

  11. 12-Nov-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  12. 12-Nov-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 8156/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The court dismissed IDFC FIRST BANK LTD's miscellaneous case for non-prosecution under Section 9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The 90-day statutory period for initiating arbitration proceedings had long elapsed with no evidence of the petitioner's attempt to commence arbitration, and the petitioner failed to appear in court, rendering the case infructuous. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case