SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED, THROUGH ITS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SMITA SUNIL SHIRKAR vs AKBAR RAMZAN KHAN AND ANRS — EXA/221/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11(2). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020028382026

Filing Number

EXA/2838/2026

Filing Date

27-Jan-2026

Registration No

EXA/221/2026

Registration Date

23-Feb-2026

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

06-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 LIMITED, THROUGH ITS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SMITA SUNIL SHIRKAR

    Adv. adv amol shinde

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.AKBAR RAMZAN KHAN AND ANRS

  2. 2.NARASH LIMBAYA NERETI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    —View PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside all arbitral awards in these consolidated matters, finding that the sole arbitrators were unilaterally appointed 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. Parties are permitted to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, with the prior arbitration period excluded from limitation calculations, unless express written agreements waive the ineligibility objections. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-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. 27-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/221/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside all arbitral awards in these consolidated matters, finding that the sole arbitrators were unilaterally appointed 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. Parties are permitted to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, with the prior arbitration period excluded from limitation calculations, unless express written agreements waive the ineligibility objections. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case