AMBIT FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED, THROUGH ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY PRASHANT OHAL vs SHREE GANESH GRAPHICS — EXA/1320/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 04th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020187662025

Filing Number

EXA/18765/2025

Filing Date

24-Jun-2025

Registration No

EXA/1320/2025

Registration Date

16-Jul-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

04-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.AMBIT FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED, THROUGH ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY PRASHANT OHAL

    Adv. Kiran Pahwa

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SHREE GANESH GRAPHICS

  2. 2.PRAVIN PRAKASH NAKASHE

  3. 3.SANGEETA PRASAD NAKASHE

  4. 4.PARSAD PRAKASH NAKASHE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    —View PDF

    Case Summary: EXA/1320/2025 The Bombay High Court set aside multiple arbitral awards and dismissed corresponding execution applications after finding that sole arbitrators were unilaterally appointed in violation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Following Supreme Court precedent establishing that unilateral arbitrator appointments are void ab initio, the court allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the time period of the original arbitration excluded from limitation periods. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-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. 24-Jun-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/1320/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: EXA/1320/2025 The Bombay High Court set aside multiple arbitral awards and dismissed corresponding execution applications after finding that sole arbitrators were unilaterally appointed in violation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Following Supreme Court precedent establishing that unilateral arbitrator appointments are void ab initio, the court allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the time period of the original arbitration 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