Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Coraplast Industries vs Time Plastic International on 27 March, 2026

Author: Sunita Agarwal

Bench: Sunita Agarwal

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/ARBI.P/265/2025                                 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2026

                                                                                                               undefined




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                              R/PETN. UNDER ARBITRATION ACT NO. 265 of 2025
                        =============================================
                                                     CORAPLAST INDUSTRIES
                                                             Versus
                                                  TIME PLASTIC INTERNATIONAL
                        =============================================
                        Appearance:
                        JAIVIK UDAY BHATT(7319) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                        MR. ANIRUDDHSINH V. KUSHWAHA(18265) for the Petitioner(s)
                        No. 1
                        =============================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
                                SUNITA AGARWAL

                                                         Date : 27/03/2026

                                                          ORAL ORDER

Mr. Jaivik Uday Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that it is not possible to trace out the Consignment Track Report of the notice sent under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in compliance of the order dated 19.12.2025 passed by this Court.

As there is no proof of service, the submission made by learned advocate for the petitioner that inspite of due service of notice, the respondents have not come forward to respond or appoint an Abritrator, cannot be appreciated. The present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be entertained in absence of a valid proof of service of notice under Section 21 of the Act, 1996. Hence, the present petition is rejected.

(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) SHRIJIT PILLAI Page 1 of 1 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 02 21:43:07 IST 2026