SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED) vs MOHD ARIF MOHD ILYAS HUSSIAN — EXA/1114/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020022182024

Filing Number

EXA/2217/2024

Filing Date

20-Jan-2024

Registration No

EXA/1114/2024

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

Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED)

    Adv. Sudhir Upadhyay

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MOHD ARIF MOHD ILYAS HUSSIAN

  2. 2.ITTEFAQUE HUSSAIN RAVUD HUSAIN SIDDIQUE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside all arbitral awards in these consolidated matters, finding the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral and therefore void ab initio, following Supreme Court precedent that such defects can be raised at any stage. The court dismissed execution applications and allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, excluding the prior time period from limitation calculations and preserving the right to object unless parties have a written waiver agreement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 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

  4. 20-Jan-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/1114/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside all arbitral awards in these consolidated matters, finding the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral and therefore void ab initio, following Supreme Court precedent that such defects can be raised at any stage. The court dismissed execution applications and allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, excluding the prior time period from limitation calculations and preserving the right to object unless parties have a written waiver agreement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case