HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED vs SANGEETA RAMESH DULGACH — EXA/625/2023

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020064092023

Filing Number

EXA/6407/2023

Filing Date

06-Mar-2023

Registration No

EXA/625/2023

Registration Date

06-May-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.HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

    Adv. SG Legal and Associates

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SANGEETA RAMESH DULGACH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    —View PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple cases, including EXA/625/2023 (HDB Financial Services Limited v. Sangeeta Ramesh Dulgach), finding that the sole arbitrator was appointed unilaterally in violation of law. Following Supreme Court precedent that unilateral arbitrator appointments are void ab initio, the court dismissed all execution applications and interim applications. The court permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, excluding the period already spent in the void arbitration from limitation calculations. 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. 06-Mar-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/625/2023

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple cases, including EXA/625/2023 (HDB Financial Services Limited v. Sangeeta Ramesh Dulgach), finding that the sole arbitrator was appointed unilaterally in violation of law. Following Supreme Court precedent that unilateral arbitrator appointments are void ab initio, the court dismissed all execution applications and interim applications. The court permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, excluding the period already spent in the void arbitration 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