TATA CAPITAL LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.) vs SHOBHA SHRICHAND KUNGWANI (BORROWER) — EXA/65/2025

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020197322024

Filing Number

EXA/19727/2024

Filing Date

25-Jun-2024

Registration No

EXA/65/2025

Registration Date

13-Jan-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 LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.)

    Adv. O M Gujar Law Chambers

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SHOBHA SHRICHAND KUNGWANI (BORROWER)

  2. 2.AJAY SHRICHAND KUNGWANI (CO-BORROWER)

  3. 3.AMOL SSHRICHAND KUNGWANI (CO-BORROWER)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    —View PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple cases (including Tata Capital Limited vs. Shobha Shrichand Kungwani and co-borrowers) due to unilateral appointment of sole arbitrators, following Supreme Court precedent that such appointments are void ab initio. The court dismissed execution applications and allowed 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. 25-Jun-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/65/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple cases (including Tata Capital Limited vs. Shobha Shrichand Kungwani and co-borrowers) due to unilateral appointment of sole arbitrators, following Supreme Court precedent that such appointments are void ab initio. The court dismissed execution applications and allowed 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