IIFL CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE NAMELY DEEPAK KUMAR vs PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL, HUF — JHHC10122132026

Next hearing: 13th April 2026.

Next hearing 13-Apr-2026

CNR: JHHC010122132026

Filing Number

C.M.P./4287/2026

Filing Date

13-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar

Coram

Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar

Bench Type

Single Bench

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Last updated 20-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.IIFL CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE NAMELY DEEPAK KUMAR

    Adv. AKHOURI AWINASH KUMAR,INDRAJIT SINHA,INDRAJIT SINHA, ,SOUMA RANJAN MUKHERJEE,ANKIT VISHAL,ASHWINI PRIYA,INDRAJIT SINHA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL, HUF

Case History

  1. 13-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 13-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice,hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh ShankarView PDF

    SUMMARY The High Court of Jharkhand disposed of two consolidated petitions (C.M.P. Nos. 4286 and 4287 of 2026) by directing the In-Charge Judge to hear and decide IIFL Capital Services Limited's stay applications in Commercial Appeals Nos. 03 and 02 of 2026 on 15.04.2026. The petitioner sought stay orders against the Commercial Court's dismissal of Section 34 arbitration applications, which had been repeatedly adjourned due to the regular judge's deputation. The High Court found no justification for the In-Charge Judge's refusal to decide the stay applications and mandated their disposal on merits on the specified date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Apr-2026

    Orders

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar

  4. 13-Apr-2026

    Case filed

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY The High Court of Jharkhand disposed of two consolidated petitions (C.M.P. Nos. 4286 and 4287 of 2026) by directing the In-Charge Judge to hear and decide IIFL Capital Services Limited's stay applications in Commercial Appeals Nos. 03 and 02 of 2026 on 15.04.2026. The petitioner sought stay orders against the Commercial Court's dismissal of Section 34 arbitration applications, which had been repeatedly adjourned due to the regular judge's deputation. The High Court found no justification for the In-Charge Judge's refusal to decide the stay applications and mandated their disposal on merits on the specified date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case