SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED (SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED) vs RAJESH ASH NARAYANA SINGH — EXA/1355/2024

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020108952024

Filing Number

EXA/10889/2024

Filing Date

30-Mar-2024

Registration No

EXA/1355/2024

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.SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED (SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED)

    Adv. adv amol shinde

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAJESH ASH NARAYANA SINGH

  2. 2.AJAY MANOHAR CHOPRA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple cases (Serial Nos. 901-903, 905-1150) involving Shriram Finance Limited against Rajesh Ash Narayana Singh and Ajay Manohar Chopra, finding that the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral and therefore void ab initio. The court dismissed all related execution applications and interim applications, permitting the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the limitation period excluded from the calculation. 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. 30-Mar-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/1355/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple cases (Serial Nos. 901-903, 905-1150) involving Shriram Finance Limited against Rajesh Ash Narayana Singh and Ajay Manohar Chopra, finding that the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral and therefore void ab initio. The court dismissed all related execution applications and interim applications, permitting the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the limitation period excluded from the calculation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case