L AND T FINANCE LIMITED vs JOGENDRA JAIPRAKASH MISHRA AND 2 ORS. — EXA/2309/2015

Case under Code of Civil Procedure. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 17th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020146922015

Filing Number

EXA/1179/2015

Filing Date

22-May-2015

Registration No

EXA/2309/2015

Registration Date

28-Oct-2015

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Jitendra Shantilal Jain

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Jitendra Shantilal Jain

Bench Type

Single

Category

EXECUTION ( 15 )

Judicial Branch

Original

Decision Date

17-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.L AND T FINANCE LIMITED

    Adv. Disha Karambar and Associates

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.JOGENDRA JAIPRAKASH MISHRA AND 2 ORS.

  2. 2.JAIPRAKASH MISHRA S/O AMRITLAL

  3. 3.ANSHULAL MISHRA S/O. AMARNATH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Jitendra Shantilal JainView PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside the arbitral awards in L&T Finance's execution application against Jogendra Jaiprakash Mishra and others, 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 all execution and interim applications, permitting the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with time already spent excluded from limitation periods. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Jun-2026

    For Dismissal in view of decision in Bhadra International Pvt. Ltd. V/s Airports Authority of India

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Jitendra Shantilal Jain

  4. 22-May-2015

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/2309/2015

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside the arbitral awards in L&T Finance's execution application against Jogendra Jaiprakash Mishra and others, 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 all execution and interim applications, permitting the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with time already spent excluded from limitation periods. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case