MS RBCL PILETECH INFRA vs MS SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED — ARB/227/2026

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 14/15. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 11-May-2026

CNR: PHHC010780992026

e-Filing Number

05-05-2026

Filing Number

ARB/28241/2026

Filing Date

06-May-2026

Registration No

ARB/227/2026

Registration Date

07-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri

Coram

Mr. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri

Category

69.4 - ARBITRATION U/S 11 (LESS THAN 5 CRORE) ( 938 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I

Decision Date

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 14/15

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MS RBCL PILETECH INFRA

    Adv. Ajay Pal Singh Saini

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MS SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh PuriView PDF

    Case Summary: ARB/227/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed RBCL Piletech Infra's petition to terminate the arbitrator's mandate, finding the petition misconceived and lacking territorial jurisdiction. The arbitration clause clearly specified Chennai as the venue, the arbitrator was validly appointed by an independent institution (Madras Arbitration Solution LLP), and the petitioner had already filed a pending challenge before the same arbitrator under Section 16, making the Punjab court petition premature and inappropriate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. ARB/227/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: ARB/227/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed RBCL Piletech Infra's petition to terminate the arbitrator's mandate, finding the petition misconceived and lacking territorial jurisdiction. The arbitration clause clearly specified Chennai as the venue, the arbitrator was validly appointed by an independent institution (Madras Arbitration Solution LLP), and the petitioner had already filed a pending challenge before the same arbitrator under Section 16, making the Punjab court petition premature and inappropriate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case