CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE CO. LIMITED MEGHANA MILIND MURUDKAR vs MOHDMOHSIN RAUF HASHMI — EXA/1276/2024

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020123312024

Filing Number

EXA/12326/2024

Filing Date

08-Apr-2024

Registration No

EXA/1276/2024

Registration Date

05-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.CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE CO. LIMITED MEGHANA MILIND MURUDKAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MOHDMOHSIN RAUF HASHMI

  2. 2.SALEHABEGUM ABDULRAUF HASMI

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 matters (Serial Nos. 901-903, 905-1150) because the sole arbitrator was appointed unilaterally, following the Supreme Court's Bhadra International ruling that such appointments are void ab initio. The court dismissed all related execution and interim applications, permitting parties to initiate fresh arbitration with the prior limitation period excluded, unless there exists a written agreement waiving the arbitrator's ineligibility. 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-Apr-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/1276/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple matters (Serial Nos. 901-903, 905-1150) because the sole arbitrator was appointed unilaterally, following the Supreme Court's Bhadra International ruling that such appointments are void ab initio. The court dismissed all related execution and interim applications, permitting parties to initiate fresh arbitration with the prior limitation period excluded, unless there exists a written agreement waiving the arbitrator's ineligibility. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case