SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD.) vs SANTOSH PRABHAKAR PAWAR (BORROWER) — EXA/1123/2024

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020039242024

Filing Number

EXA/3922/2024

Filing Date

03-Feb-2024

Registration No

EXA/1123/2024

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 )

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 (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD.)

    Adv. Sudhir Upadhyay

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SANTOSH PRABHAKAR PAWAR (BORROWER)

  2. 2.VISHNU VIJAY SHARMA (GUARANTOR)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple cases involving Shriram Finance Limited against borrowers/guarantors, finding that the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral and therefore void ab initio. The court dismissed all connected execution and interim applications, permitting parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with excluded limitation periods, unless express written waiver agreements existed 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. 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. 03-Feb-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/1123/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple cases involving Shriram Finance Limited against borrowers/guarantors, finding that the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral and therefore void ab initio. The court dismissed all connected execution and interim applications, permitting parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with excluded limitation periods, unless express written waiver agreements existed 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