L AND T FINANCE LIMITED DISHA KARAMBAR AND ASSOCIATES vs MR. RAJENDRA TATYASAHEB SHINDE, (BORROWER) S/O KAVITA RAJ SHINDE, AND ANR. — EXA/1591/2015

Case under Code of Civil Procedure. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 08th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020133872013

Filing Number

EXA/771/2013

Filing Date

15-Jul-2013

Registration No

EXA/1591/2015

Registration Date

05-Aug-2015

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-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 21-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.L AND T FINANCE LIMITED DISHA KARAMBAR AND ASSOCIATES

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MR. RAJENDRA TATYASAHEB SHINDE, (BORROWER) S/O KAVITA RAJ SHINDE, AND ANR.

  2. 2.MR. JITENDRA S SAID ( GUARANTOR) S/O SHIVJIRAO SAID

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

    —View PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple cases involving L&T Finance Limited against borrower Rajendra Tatyasaheb Shinde and guarantor Jitendra S Said, finding the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral and void ab initio per Supreme Court precedent. The court dismissed related execution and interim applications, allowing 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. 08-May-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. 15-Jul-2013

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/1591/2015

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple cases involving L&T Finance Limited against borrower Rajendra Tatyasaheb Shinde and guarantor Jitendra S Said, finding the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral and void ab initio per Supreme Court precedent. The court dismissed related execution and interim applications, allowing 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