Dr J Atheeshwar Das M/S.RAHUL BALAJI, vishnu mohan,madhan babu vs Dr Shweta Atheeshwar Das — OA/382/2026

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section Section9(1)(ii)(d). Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: HCMA011010282026

e-Filing Number

23-04-2026

Filing Number

OA/74915/2026

Filing Date

24-Apr-2026

Registration No

OA/382/2026

Registration Date

27-Apr-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh Babu

Coram

Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh Babu

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

Arbitration ( 9 )

Sub-Category

Section 9 ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

ORIGINALSECTION

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section Section9(1)(ii)(d)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Dr J Atheeshwar Das M/S.RAHUL BALAJI, vishnu mohan,madhan babu

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Dr Shweta Atheeshwar Das

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 02-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh BabuView PDF

    Case Summary: OA 382/2026 The Madras High Court granted an interim injunction restraining Dr. Shweta Atheeshwar Das from independently representing herself as authorized to bind, manage, or borrow on behalf of the firm 'Medicare Eye Hospital' to any banks, financial institutions, insurers, vendors, patients, employees, government authorities, or on social media/digital platforms. The Court found a partnership dispute between the parties, noting that while both agreed to arbitration, they disagreed on arbitrator nomination. The matter is listed after four weeks, with notice issued to the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. OA/382/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: OA 382/2026 The Madras High Court granted an interim injunction restraining Dr. Shweta Atheeshwar Das from independently representing herself as authorized to bind, manage, or borrow on behalf of the firm 'Medicare Eye Hospital' to any banks, financial institutions, insurers, vendors, patients, employees, government authorities, or on social media/digital platforms. The Court found a partnership dispute between the parties, noting that while both agreed to arbitration, they disagreed on arbitrator nomination. The matter is listed after four weeks, with notice issued to the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case