AP-COM/778/2025 v. KOTHAVALSA INFRAVENTURES
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
advocates for the respective parties, the application is dismissed as
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. In view of the joint affidavit and the prayers made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to take steps as permitted in law. B.Pal (SHAMPA SARKAR, J.)
Judgment
ORDER SHEET AP-COM/778/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMERCIAL DIVISION SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LTD. VS KOTHAVALSA INFRAVENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR Date: 18th November, 2025. Appearance: Mr. Mehul Parti, Adv. Mr. Suryaneel Das, Adv. Ms. Shivangi Bajpai, Adv. Ms. Zoya Junaid, Adv. Mr. Aditya Mondal, Adv. …for the petitioner Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ranjana Roy Gowai, Adv. Mr. Vasudha Sen, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Vineet Wadhwa, Adv. Ms. Surabita Biswas, Adv. …for the respondent Mr. Lalratan Mondal, Adv. …for the respondent no.2 The Court:
A joint affidavit entered into by the parties has been filed in Court. Paragraph 4 of the joint affidavit contemplates that the parties have 2 mutually agreed to shift and change the seat and venue of arbitration from Kolkata to New Delhi and the parties have further agreed that the courts at New Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction in relation to the arbitration proceedings.
Operative part
In view of the joint affidavit and the prayers made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to take steps as permitted in law. B.Pal
(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: advocates for the respective parties, the application is dismissed as
Which court decided this case, and when?
Calcutta High Court, on 18 Nov 2025. The bench was SHAMPA SARKAR.
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.