NEO GROWTH CREDIT PVT LTD vs MALAIKA APPLIANCES LTD AND 4 ORS — EXA/1620/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 11(2). Disposed: Contested--WITHDRAWN on 09th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM020003002022
Filing Number
EXA/299/2022
Filing Date
05-Jan-2022
Registration No
EXA/1620/2022
Registration Date
20-Oct-2022
Judge
Hon'ble Ms Justice Aarti A. Sathe , National Lok Adalat
Coram
Hon'ble Ms Justice Aarti A. Sathe , National Lok Adalat
Bench Type
Single
Category
EXECUTION ( 15 )
Judicial Branch
Original
Decision Date
09-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--WITHDRAWN
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.NEO GROWTH CREDIT PVT LTD
Adv. GNP LEGAL
Respondent(s)
-
1.MALAIKA APPLIANCES LTD AND 4 ORS
-
2.GILBERT PAUSTINE BAPTIST
-
3.MARCENLINE JAQUIM BAPTIST
-
4.ELCY JOHN RODRIGUES
-
5.ELCY JOHN RODRIGUES
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
09-May-2026
Hon'ble Ms Justice Aarti A. Sathe,national Lok AdalatView PDF
The Bombay High Court granted Neo Growth Credit's request to withdraw its execution application and declared the underlying arbitral award void-ab-initio, finding that the arbitrator's unilateral appointment rendered it non-executable from inception. The court allowed the claimant liberty to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, with the prior arbitration period excluded from limitation considerations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
20-Aug-2025
Shri. A. H. Laddhad(Prothonotary Senior Master)View PDF
-
20-Dec-2022
For Hearing
Hon'ble Shri Justice B.P. Colabawalla
-
10-Nov-2022
For Hearing
Hon'ble Shri Justice B.P. Colabawalla
-
18-Oct-2022
For Direction
Hon'ble Shri Justice B.P. Colabawalla
-
13-Sep-2022
Hon'ble Shri Justice B.P. ColabawallaView PDF
-
06-Sep-2022
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
05-Jan-2022
Case filed
Registration No. EXA/1620/2022
The Bombay High Court granted Neo Growth Credit's request to withdraw its execution application and declared the underlying arbitral award void-ab-initio, finding that the arbitrator's unilateral appointment rendered it non-executable from inception. The court allowed the claimant liberty to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, with the prior arbitration period excluded from limitation considerations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts