FEDBANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED ASAP LEGAL vs Svastiga Distribution — EXA/760/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Section Rule11(2). Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 09th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020064672025

e-Filing Number

27-02-2025

Filing Number

EXA/6467/2025

Filing Date

27-Feb-2025

Registration No

EXA/760/2025

Registration Date

29-Mar-2025

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

09-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Section Rule11(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.FEDBANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED ASAP LEGAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Svastiga Distribution

  2. 2.Dilip Ramjag Gupta

  3. 3.Mamta Dilip Gupta

  4. 4.Sushil Haridas Gupta

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    The High Court of Bombay set aside arbitral awards in consolidated matters (Serial Nos. 901-920, 924) where the sole arbitrator's appointment was found to be unilateral, following Supreme Court precedent that such appointments are void ab initio. The court dismissed related execution and interim applications, permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the prior limitation period excluded, and allowed liberty to apply if express written agreements waiving arbitrator ineligibility exist. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Jun-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. 27-Feb-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/760/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Bombay set aside arbitral awards in consolidated matters (Serial Nos. 901-920, 924) where the sole arbitrator's appointment was found to be unilateral, following Supreme Court precedent that such appointments are void ab initio. The court dismissed related execution and interim applications, permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the prior limitation period excluded, and allowed liberty to apply if express written agreements waiving arbitrator ineligibility exist. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case