UGRO CAPITAL LIMITED vs SHREEJI HOSPITAL — 13059/2025

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

Case disposed

MISCCASE - MISCELLANEOUS CASE

CNR: WBCC010174872025

Filing Number

24227/2025

Filing Date

16-Sep-2025

Registration No

13059/2025

Registration Date

16-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.UGRO CAPITAL LIMITED

    Adv. Ajay Kumar Das

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SHREEJI HOSPITAL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The City Civil Court, Calcutta dismissed UGRO Capital Limited's miscellaneous case against Shreeji Hospital under Section 9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court found that the petitioner failed to invoke arbitration proceedings within the mandatory 90-day period, and since Section 9 provides only interim relief, the case could not be extended. The appointed receiver was discharged and possession of the subject vehicle 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-Dec-2025

    Sr/Ad/Appearence

    LD Judge 3rd Bench

  5. 18-Sep-2025

    Interlocatory OrderView PDF

  6. 18-Sep-2025

    Sr/Ad/Appearence

    LD Judge 3rd Bench

  7. 17-Sep-2025

    Sr/Ad/Appearence

    LD Judge 3rd Bench

  8. 16-Sep-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 16-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 13059/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The City Civil Court, Calcutta dismissed UGRO Capital Limited's miscellaneous case against Shreeji Hospital under Section 9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court found that the petitioner failed to invoke arbitration proceedings within the mandatory 90-day period, and since Section 9 provides only interim relief, the case could not be extended. The appointed receiver was discharged and possession of the subject vehicle 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