SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD)) vs A. V. TRAVELS PROP SHANKAR D KONDRATI (BORROWER) — EXA/222/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11(2). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020196492023

Filing Number

EXA/19641/2023

Filing Date

18-Jul-2023

Registration No

EXA/222/2024

Registration Date

05-Feb-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

17-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 27-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD))

    Adv. Sudhir Upadhyay

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.A. V. TRAVELS PROP SHANKAR D KONDRATI (BORROWER)

  2. 2.SWAMY NARSIMA JALKA (GUARANTOR)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside the arbitral awards in this case and dismissed related execution applications, finding that the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral and therefore void ab initio, following Supreme Court precedent. The court permitted the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, excluding the period of prior arbitration from the limitation period for doing so. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-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. 18-Jul-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/222/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside the arbitral awards in this case and dismissed related execution applications, finding that the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral and therefore void ab initio, following Supreme Court precedent. The court permitted the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, excluding the period of prior arbitration from the limitation period for doing so. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case