SBFC FINANCE LIMITED MEGHANA MILIND MURUDKAR vs AMIT PRAKASH CHAND KUMAR (BORROWER) — EXA/1344/2024

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020083812024

Filing Number

EXA/8379/2024

Filing Date

08-Mar-2024

Registration No

EXA/1344/2024

Registration Date

06-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.SBFC FINANCE LIMITED MEGHANA MILIND MURUDKAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.AMIT PRAKASH CHAND KUMAR (BORROWER)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    Case Summary: EXA/1344/2024 The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple matters (Serial Nos. 901-903, 905-1150) following the Supreme Court's ruling in *Bhadra International* that unilateral arbitrator appointments are void ab initio. The court found the sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed and accordingly dismissed all related execution and interim applications, permitting parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the limitation period excluded from the original invocation date. 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. 08-Mar-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/1344/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: EXA/1344/2024 The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple matters (Serial Nos. 901-903, 905-1150) following the Supreme Court's ruling in *Bhadra International* that unilateral arbitrator appointments are void ab initio. The court found the sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed and accordingly dismissed all related execution and interim applications, permitting parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the limitation period excluded from the original invocation date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case