KARVY FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED vs HARI STEEL INDUSTRIES — EXA/2341/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 15th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020152562023

Filing Number

EXA/15250/2023

Filing Date

07-Jun-2023

Registration No

EXA/2341/2024

Registration Date

31-Aug-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

15-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 25-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KARVY FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

    Adv. Advocate Priya Rita

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HARI STEEL INDUSTRIES

  2. 2.MUKESH HARIDAS GADOYA

  3. 3.NILAY MUKESH GADOYA

  4. 4.BHAVNA MUKESH GADOYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    The Bombay High Court dismissed multiple applications and set aside arbitral awards because the sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Bhadra International that such appointments are void ab initio. The court allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with time already spent excluded from limitation periods, but permitted continuation only if there was an express written agreement waiving the arbitrator's ineligibility 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. 15-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. 02-Aug-2024

    Shri. S. B. Bhansali (Prothonotary Senior Master))View PDF

  5. 02-Aug-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 07-Jun-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/2341/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court dismissed multiple applications and set aside arbitral awards because the sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Bhadra International that such appointments are void ab initio. The court allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with time already spent excluded from limitation periods, but permitted continuation only if there was an express written agreement waiving the arbitrator's ineligibility 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