INDOSTAR CAPITAL FINANCE LTD vs SUHIT MAITY — 12821/2025

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 9. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

MISCCASE - MISCELLANEOUS CASE

CNR: WBCC010170842025

Filing Number

23642/2025

Filing Date

11-Sep-2025

Registration No

12821/2025

Registration Date

11-Sep-2025

Court

City Civil Court, Calcutta

Judge

3-LD Judge 3rd Bench

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED

Last updated 26-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 9

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.INDOSTAR CAPITAL FINANCE LTD

    Adv. Tutul Das

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SUHIT MAITY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The City Civil Court, Calcutta dismissed INDOSTAR CAPITAL FINANCE LTD's miscellaneous case against SUHIT MAITY under Section 9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as the petitioner failed to invoke arbitration proceedings within the mandatory 90-day period and took no steps before the court. The receiver was discharged and the vehicle's possession was ordered to be surrendered to the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    LD Judge 3rd Bench

  4. 20-Feb-2026

    Sr/Ad/Appearence

    LD Judge 3rd Bench

  5. 06-Dec-2025

    Sr/Ad/Appearence

    LD Judge 3rd Bench

  6. 17-Sep-2025

    Interlocatory OrderView PDF

  7. 17-Sep-2025

    Sr/Ad/Appearence

    LD Judge 3rd Bench

  8. 12-Sep-2025

    Sr/Ad/Appearence

    LD Judge 3rd Bench

  9. 11-Sep-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 11-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 12821/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The City Civil Court, Calcutta dismissed INDOSTAR CAPITAL FINANCE LTD's miscellaneous case against SUHIT MAITY under Section 9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as the petitioner failed to invoke arbitration proceedings within the mandatory 90-day period and took no steps before the court. The receiver was discharged and the vehicle's possession was ordered to be surrendered to the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case