Infinity fincorp Solutions Pvt Ltd Tikshta Modi vs Sanvariya Nai — EXA/2350/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Section Rule 11 (2). Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 08th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020119972025

e-Filing Number

16-04-2025

Filing Number

EXA/11997/2025

Filing Date

17-Apr-2025

Registration No

EXA/2350/2025

Registration Date

31-Oct-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay Ahuja

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay Ahuja

Bench Type

Single

Category

EXECUTION ( 15 )

Sub-Category

AWARDS ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

Original

Decision Date

08-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 09-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Section Rule 11 (2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Infinity fincorp Solutions Pvt Ltd Tikshta Modi

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Sanvariya Nai

  2. 2.Kavita Devi Sen

  3. 3.Kamala Bai Sen

  4. 4.Narayan Lal Sen

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple consolidated matters (Serial Nos. 902-925) because the sole arbitrator was appointed unilaterally, which is void ab initio under Supreme Court precedent. Consequently, all Commercial Execution Applications and related interim applications were dismissed. The court permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the limitation period excluded and allowed liberty to apply if express written agreements waiving ineligibility exist under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-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. 17-Apr-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/2350/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple consolidated matters (Serial Nos. 902-925) because the sole arbitrator was appointed unilaterally, which is void ab initio under Supreme Court precedent. Consequently, all Commercial Execution Applications and related interim applications were dismissed. The court permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the limitation period excluded and allowed liberty to apply if express written agreements waiving ineligibility exist under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case