INDOSTAR CAPITAL FINANCE LTD vs AROBINDA SINGH — 12942/2025

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

Case disposed

MISCCASE - MISCELLANEOUS CASE

CNR: WBCC010173322025

Filing Number

24035/2025

Filing Date

12-Sep-2025

Registration No

12942/2025

Registration Date

12-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.AROBINDA SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Calcutta City Civil Court dismissed Indostar Capital Finance Ltd's miscellaneous case against Arobinda Singh for failing to invoke arbitration proceedings within the mandatory 90-day period under Section 9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner took no steps during the hearing, and the court found no basis to extend the interim measure. The receiver was discharged and possession of the subject vehicle was ordered 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-Dec-2025

    Sr/Ad/Appearence

    LD Judge 3rd Bench

  5. 17-Sep-2025

    Interlocatory OrderView PDF

  6. 17-Sep-2025

    Sr/Ad/Appearence

    LD Judge 3rd Bench

  7. 15-Sep-2025

    Sr/Ad/Appearence

    LD Judge 3rd Bench

  8. 12-Sep-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 12-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 12942/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Calcutta City Civil Court dismissed Indostar Capital Finance Ltd's miscellaneous case against Arobinda Singh for failing to invoke arbitration proceedings within the mandatory 90-day period under Section 9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner took no steps during the hearing, and the court found no basis to extend the interim measure. The receiver was discharged and possession of the subject vehicle was ordered 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