SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED NOW KNOWN AS SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED vs ASHISH KUMAR GUPTA S/O SIYA RAM GUPTA — EXA/1177/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 23rd April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020064032024

Filing Number

EXA/6401/2024

Filing Date

22-Feb-2024

Registration No

EXA/1177/2024

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

23-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 29-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED NOW KNOWN AS SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED

    Adv. Aarti M Kulkarni Khadilkar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ASHISH KUMAR GUPTA S/O SIYA RAM GUPTA

  2. 2.AKHILESH H YADAV

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    Case Summary: The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple consolidated matters (including EXA/1177/2024) after finding that the sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed, applying Supreme Court precedent that such appointments are void ab initio. The court dismissed all execution and interim applications, permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, and excluded the prior arbitration period from limitation calculations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-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. 22-Feb-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/1177/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple consolidated matters (including EXA/1177/2024) after finding that the sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed, applying Supreme Court precedent that such appointments are void ab initio. The court dismissed all execution and interim applications, permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, and excluded the prior arbitration period 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