Thilaka v. M/s.Bhoomi and Buildings Private Limited
A/1885/2026 · 2026-06-10
K Kumaresh Babu
Transfer Petitionbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 32323 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 32323 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
A No. 1885 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU A No. 1885 of 2026 Thilaka W/o T.S.K.Kartheesan, No.6/2, Kakkanji Street, Sathya Garden, Saligramman, Chennai - 600 093 ..Applicant(s) Vs
1. M/s.Bhoomi and Buildings Private Limited Represented by its Authorized Signatory, No.6, Padmanabha Nagar, 2nd Street, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020.
2. M/s.Hanan Dermatology Specialty Clinic Represented by its Managing Director, Dr.Mohamed Basith MBBS, MD, A Block, Gem Bhoomi and Buildings Old Mahabalipuram Road, Padur, Chennai - 603 103.
3. Thota Dayakar S/o.T.Ranganayakullu, No.3-469, Pagadamanu Street, Greampet, Chittor, Andhra Pradesh - 517 002.
4. T.Pushpalatha W/o.Thoata Dayakar, S/o.T.Ranganayakullu, No.3-469, Pagadamanu Street, Greampet, Chittor, Andhra Pradesh - 517 002. __________ Page1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A No. 1885 of 2026
5. Thota Venkat S/o.Thota Dayakar, No.3-469, Pagadamanu Street, Greampet, Chittor, Andhra Pradesh - 517 002. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER:- Application filed to extend the mandate of the Honourable Sole Arbitrator, for a further period as deemed fit by this Honourable Court under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. For Applicant(s): Mr. M Prakash Kumar For Respondent(s): R1 , R3 & R5 - Court Notice Served No appearance R2 – No appearance
ORDER The present application has been filed to extend the mandate of the Hon'ble Sole Arbitrator, for a further period as deemed fit by this Court.
2. In spite of notice having been ordered to the respondents and respondents 1, 3, 4 & 5 having received the notice had failed to appear before this Court either in person or through a counsel.
3. It is submitted across the bar that the second respondent had remained ex-parte even before the learned Arbitrator. The mandate had expired on 14.02.2026 when the arbitration proceedings was at the stage where claimants evidence had been closed and it is for the respondents to led in evidence. __________ Page2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A No. 1885 of 2026
4. In view of the same, this Court finds no impediment in granting extension of time as required under Section 29(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Accordingly, the application stands ordered. The mandate is extended for a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. 10-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GBA __________ Page3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A No. 1885 of 2026 K.KUMARESH BABU, J. GBA A No. 1885 of 2026 10-06-2026 __________ Page4 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis