BAJAJ FINANCE LTD vs VIDHYA PLASTIC AND 3 ORS — EXA/1566/2023

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020005912022

Filing Number

EXA/590/2022

Filing Date

07-Jan-2022

Registration No

EXA/1566/2023

Registration Date

11-Oct-2023

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.BAJAJ FINANCE LTD

    Adv. Sandeep D Rankhambe,SANTOSH P. JAWALE,SANTOSH P. JAWALE, SANTOSH P. JAWALE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.VIDHYA PLASTIC AND 3 ORS

  2. 2.VIDYA BHANDARE

  3. 3.VIMAL BHANDARE

  4. 4.RAMCHANDRA N. BHANDARE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    Summary: The Bombay High Court dismissed 190 applications (Serial Nos. 32-221) and set aside all related arbitral awards because the sole arbitrators were appointed unilaterally, which is void ab initio under Supreme Court precedent. The court allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the time period already spent excluded from the limitation period, except where parties have a 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. 07-Jan-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/1566/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Bombay High Court dismissed 190 applications (Serial Nos. 32-221) and set aside all related arbitral awards because the sole arbitrators were appointed unilaterally, which is void ab initio under Supreme Court precedent. The court allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the time period already spent excluded from the limitation period, except where parties have a 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