SBI CARDS AND PAYMENTS SERVICES PVT. LTD. MURLIDHAR KALE vs SEEMA MITTAL — EXA/289/2021

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020054422021

Filing Number

EXA/5415/2021

Filing Date

24-Feb-2021

Registration No

EXA/289/2021

Registration Date

03-Jul-2021

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajesh S. Patil

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajesh S. Patil

Bench Type

Single

Category

EXECUTION ( 15 )

Judicial Branch

Original

Decision Date

06-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.SBI CARDS AND PAYMENTS SERVICES PVT. LTD. MURLIDHAR KALE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SEEMA MITTAL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajesh S. PatilView PDF

    The Bombay High Court dismissed SBI Cards' execution application against Seema Mittal, declaring the arbitral award void-ab-initio because the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral, relying on a recent Supreme Court judgment establishing that arbitral awards can be set aside at execution stage on this ground. The court permitted the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the time period from the original arbitration invocation excluded from limitation calculations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    For Dismissal Under Rule 329

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajesh S. Patil

  4. 24-Feb-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/289/2021

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court dismissed SBI Cards' execution application against Seema Mittal, declaring the arbitral award void-ab-initio because the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral, relying on a recent Supreme Court judgment establishing that arbitral awards can be set aside at execution stage on this ground. The court permitted the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the time period from the original arbitration invocation excluded from limitation calculations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case