MAPLETREE PROPERTIES P.LTD. vs LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST . — C.A. No. 4598/2013

Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010104672010

Filing Date

01-Apr-2010

Registration No

C.A. No. 4598/2013

Diary Number

10467/2010

Order Date

30-Aug-2013

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Last updated 24-Mar-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MAPLETREE PROPERTIES P.LTD.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST .

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Aug-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 10-May-2013

    JudgmentView PDF

  4. 10-May-2013
  5. 20-Mar-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 14-Feb-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 07-Feb-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 10-Jan-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 16-Oct-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 05-Sep-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 30-Jul-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 23-Apr-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 09-Apr-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 06-Feb-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 16-Jan-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 01-Sep-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 11-Jul-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 08-Jul-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 07-Jul-2011
  20. 12-May-2011
  21. 12-May-2011
  22. 26-Apr-2011
  23. 02-Feb-2011
  24. 27-Jan-2011
  25. 11-Jan-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  26. 22-Nov-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  27. 15-Sep-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  28. 19-Apr-2010
  29. 05-Apr-2010
  30. 01-Apr-2010

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 4598/2013

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: On 30 August 2013, the Supreme Court heard Interlocutory Application No. 5 in Civil Appeal No. 4595 of 2013 (Ludhiana Improvement Trust v. Mapletree Property P.Ltd.). The Court clarified that following its earlier judgment of 10 May 2013 setting aside the Delhi High Court's order appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, proceedings before the arbitrator cannot be continued. The interlocutory application was accordingly disposed of. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case