TATA CAPITAL LIMITED vs CHUNILAL CHAPSHI AND COMPANY — EXA/2497/2025

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020180122025

e-Filing Number

17-06-2025

Filing Number

EXA/18011/2025

Filing Date

18-Jun-2025

Registration No

EXA/2497/2025

Registration Date

26-Nov-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 (Maharashtra Amendment) Section Rule 11 (2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.TATA CAPITAL LIMITED

    Adv. PINTUSINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.CHUNILAL CHAPSHI AND COMPANY

  2. 2.LATA CHUNILAL GALA

  3. 3.LALIT CHUNILAL GALA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    —View PDF

    Case Summary: EXA/2497/2025 The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple cases (including this one involving Tata Capital Limited vs. Chunilal Chapshi and Company and others) finding that the sole arbitrators were unilaterally appointed, rendering them void ab initio per Supreme Court precedent. The court dismissed all execution applications and connected interim applications, allowing 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. 18-Jun-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/2497/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: EXA/2497/2025 The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple cases (including this one involving Tata Capital Limited vs. Chunilal Chapshi and Company and others) finding that the sole arbitrators were unilaterally appointed, rendering them void ab initio per Supreme Court precedent. The court dismissed all execution applications and connected interim applications, allowing 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