TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED vs GOVINDPRASAD PANDEY — EXA/2317/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 05th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020170672023

Filing Number

EXA/17060/2023

Filing Date

23-Jun-2023

Registration No

EXA/2317/2025

Registration Date

28-Oct-2025

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

05-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 21-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

    Adv. O M Gujar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GOVINDPRASAD PANDEY

  2. 2.RAJENDRA SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    —View PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple matters (including case EXA/2317/2025 involving Tata Capital Financial Services Limited vs. Govindprasad Pandey and Rajendra Singh) because the sole arbitrators were unilaterally appointed, following Supreme Court precedent that such appointments are void ab initio. The court dismissed all execution applications and interim applications, but permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the prior arbitration period excluded from limitation calculations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-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. 23-Jun-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/2317/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple matters (including case EXA/2317/2025 involving Tata Capital Financial Services Limited vs. Govindprasad Pandey and Rajendra Singh) because the sole arbitrators were unilaterally appointed, following Supreme Court precedent that such appointments are void ab initio. The court dismissed all execution applications and interim applications, but permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the prior arbitration period excluded from limitation calculations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case