HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED vs ROOPESH RAMA DEVADIGA — EXA/2188/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2). Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020000612023

Filing Number

EXA/61/2023

Filing Date

02-Jan-2023

Registration No

EXA/2188/2024

Registration Date

27-Aug-2024

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay Ahuja

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay Ahuja

Bench Type

Single

Category

EXECUTION ( 15 )

Judicial Branch

Original

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 07-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

    Adv. SG Legal and Associates

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ROOPESH RAMA DEVADIGA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    The Bombay High Court dismissed 190 consolidated applications (serial nos. 32-221) because the sole arbitrators were appointed unilaterally, which the Supreme Court has declared void ab initio. The court set aside all related arbitral awards and commercial execution applications, allowing parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the prior time period excluded from limitation calculations. The parties may seek relief if there is an express written agreement waiving the arbitrator's ineligibility under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Apr-2026

    For Dismissal in view of decision in Bhadra International Pvt. Ltd. V/s Airports Authority of India

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay Ahuja

  4. 26-Jul-2024

    Shri. S. B. Bhansali (Prothonotary Senior Master))View PDF

  5. 26-Jul-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 02-Jan-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/2188/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court dismissed 190 consolidated applications (serial nos. 32-221) because the sole arbitrators were appointed unilaterally, which the Supreme Court has declared void ab initio. The court set aside all related arbitral awards and commercial execution applications, allowing parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the prior time period excluded from limitation calculations. The parties may seek relief if there is an express written agreement waiving the arbitrator's ineligibility under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case