Smt P Kalyanasundaravalli Proprietrix of M/s.K.T.Bakthavatchalam Naidu Agency M/S.JOTHIMANIAN M R, M.LOGESH,S.SUVITHA,S.ELAYATHAMIZHAN vs Indian Oil Corporation — OA/551/2026

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9(ii)(d). Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: HCMA011278862026

e-Filing Number

10-06-2026

Filing Number

OA/93476/2026

Filing Date

10-Jun-2026

Registration No

OA/551/2026

Registration Date

10-Jun-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 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9(ii)(d)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Smt P Kalyanasundaravalli Proprietrix of M/s.K.T.Bakthavatchalam Naidu Agency M/S.JOTHIMANIAN M R, M.LOGESH,S.SUVITHA,S.ELAYATHAMIZHAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Indian Oil Corporation

  2. 2.The Executive Director and Sales Head

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 10-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh BabuView PDF

    CASE SUMMARY: OA No. 551/2026 The Madras High Court granted interim injunction for four weeks restraining Indian Oil Corporation from executing the dealership termination order dated 07/04/2025 against the petitioner. The court found no prejudice to respondents in not effectuating the termination, since interim protection orders had already protected dealership continuation since 15/04/2025. The matter is listed after four weeks following notice to respondents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Jun-2026

    For Admission (Section 9 - Arbitration And Conciliation Act)

    Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh Babu

  4. 10-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. OA/551/2026

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: OA No. 551/2026 The Madras High Court granted interim injunction for four weeks restraining Indian Oil Corporation from executing the dealership termination order dated 07/04/2025 against the petitioner. The court found no prejudice to respondents in not effectuating the termination, since interim protection orders had already protected dealership continuation since 15/04/2025. The matter is listed after four weeks following notice to respondents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case