SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED) vs GURJIT SINGH M SAINI — EXA/1105/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 17th April 2026.
CNR: HCBM020020252024
Filing Number
EXA/2025/2024
Filing Date
19-Jan-2024
Registration No
EXA/1105/2024
Registration Date
04-Jun-2024
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay Ahuja
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay Ahuja
Bench Type
Single
Category
EXECUTION ( 15 )
Sub-Category
AWARDS ( 2 )
Judicial Branch
Original
Decision Date
17-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 27-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED)
Adv. Sudhir Upadhyay
Respondent(s)
-
1.GURJIT SINGH M SAINI
-
2.MANPREET SINGH
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF
The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple cases (Serial Nos. 901-942, 944-1132, 1138, 1141, 1145) involving Shriram Finance Limited, 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 interim applications, while permitting parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the prior limitation period excluded from calculation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-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
-
19-Jan-2024
Case filed
Registration No. EXA/1105/2024
The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple cases (Serial Nos. 901-942, 944-1132, 1138, 1141, 1145) involving Shriram Finance Limited, 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 interim applications, while permitting parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the prior limitation period excluded from calculation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts