Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd v. Amitava Bhowmick32 by 5 G T
Case at a glance
Outcome
Withdrawn
Therefore, by granting leave as prayed for, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn without any order as to costs
Provisions considered
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 s. 11(6)(a)
Judgment
Arb O.P(COM.DIV.) No. 269 of 2026__________Page1 of 2IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 21.04.2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHYArb O.P(COM.DIV.) No. 269 of 2026Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,Having its Registered Office at27 BKC, C27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai - 400 051.And a Branch Office at402 L, Samson Tower, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Mr.B.Abhijeet Pujari..PetitionerVsAmitava Bhowmick32 by 5 G T, roadmarabati, Baidyabati M,Hooghly, West Bengal - 712 223...RespondentPetition filed under Section 11(6)(a) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the differences and disputes between the parties under the Personal Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 24.07.2023 bearing Contract No.SPLN75769528.For Petitioner:Mr.Ra.Sivadhara Adiyamanfor M/s.GNP LegalORDERLearned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to re-file before the Court of competent jurisdiction. On perusal of the personal loan-cum-guarantee agreement, it appears to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P(COM.DIV.) No. 269 of 2026__________Page2 of 2SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.mmihave been executed at Kolkata. The respondent/borrower appears to be residing at Hooghly. Therefore, by granting leave as prayed for, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn without any order as to costs.21.04.2026mmiArb O.P(COM.DIV.) No. 269 of 2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Therefore, by granting leave as prayed for, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn without any order as to costs
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 11(6)(a).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.