SHRIRAM FINANCE CO. LTD.(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE LIMITED) vs HARBHAJAN SINGH PAWAR — EXA/9/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 05th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020010002024

Filing Number

EXA/1000/2024

Filing Date

10-Jan-2024

Registration No

EXA/9/2025

Registration Date

03-Jan-2025

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

05-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHRIRAM FINANCE CO. LTD.(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE LIMITED)

    Adv. Disha Karambar and Associates

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HARBHAJAN SINGH PAWAR

  2. 2.HARDEEP SINGH BALDEV SINGH PAWAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    —View PDF

    Summary: The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple cases involving Shriram Finance Co. Ltd. and others, finding that the sole arbitrators were appointed unilaterally in violation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Following Supreme Court precedent that unilateral arbitrator appointments are void ab initio, the court dismissed all execution applications and related proceedings, while permitting parties to initiate fresh arbitration with time exclusion for the prior proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-May-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. 10-Jan-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/9/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple cases involving Shriram Finance Co. Ltd. and others, finding that the sole arbitrators were appointed unilaterally in violation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Following Supreme Court precedent that unilateral arbitrator appointments are void ab initio, the court dismissed all execution applications and related proceedings, while permitting parties to initiate fresh arbitration with time exclusion for the prior proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case