SHRIRAM FINANCE LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO LTD) vs MANSOOR BABULAL SHAIKH — EXA/1119/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020109212024

Filing Number

EXA/10914/2024

Filing Date

30-Mar-2024

Registration No

EXA/1119/2024

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

17-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 27-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHRIRAM FINANCE LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO LTD)

    Adv. adv amol shinde

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MANSOOR BABULAL SHAIKH

  2. 2.SHABBIR ISLAM KHAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple cases involving Shriram Finance Ltd. against Mansoor Babulal Shaikh and Shabbir Islam Khan, finding that the sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed in violation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Following Supreme Court precedent that unilateral arbitrator appointments are void ab initio, the court dismissed related execution applications and allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration, with the previous limitation period excluded from calculation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-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/1119/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple cases involving Shriram Finance Ltd. against Mansoor Babulal Shaikh and Shabbir Islam Khan, finding that the sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed in violation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Following Supreme Court precedent that unilateral arbitrator appointments are void ab initio, the court dismissed related execution applications and allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration, with the previous limitation period excluded from 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