MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED vs SIDDHI RENT A CAR PVT. LTD. AND ANR — EXA/715/2023

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020054402022

Filing Number

EXA/5439/2022

Filing Date

23-Feb-2022

Registration No

EXA/715/2023

Registration Date

06-Jun-2023

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 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 11(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

    Adv. Disha Karambar and Associates

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SIDDHI RENT A CAR PVT. LTD. AND ANR

  2. 2.AMARNATH RAMNATH MISHRA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    —View PDF

    Case Summary: EXA/715/2023 The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services' execution proceedings against Siddhi Rent A Car Pvt. Ltd. and Amarnath Ramnath Mishra, finding the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral and void ab initio. Following Supreme Court precedent, the court dismissed all execution applications and allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration, excluding prior limitation periods and permitting objections waiver only through express written agreement. 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. 23-Feb-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/715/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: EXA/715/2023 The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services' execution proceedings against Siddhi Rent A Car Pvt. Ltd. and Amarnath Ramnath Mishra, finding the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral and void ab initio. Following Supreme Court precedent, the court dismissed all execution applications and allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration, excluding prior limitation periods and permitting objections waiver only through express written 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