TATA CAPITAL LIMITED FORMERLY KNOWN AS TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICE vs KRYSTAL TRNASPORT SERVICE PROPVARSHA BORADE AND ANR — EXA/1640/2025

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020197972025

Filing Number

EXA/19796/2025

Filing Date

02-Jul-2025

Registration No

EXA/1640/2025

Registration Date

02-Sep-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.TATA CAPITAL LIMITED FORMERLY KNOWN AS TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICE

    Adv. O M Gujar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KRYSTAL TRNASPORT SERVICE PROPVARSHA BORADE AND ANR

  2. 2.SUNDER MURLIDHAR BORADE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    —View PDF

    Summary of Case EXA/1640/2025 The Bombay High Court set aside all arbitral awards in consolidated proceedings involving Tata Capital Limited against Krystal Transport Service and others, finding that the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral and void ab initio per Supreme Court precedent. The court dismissed all related execution and interim applications, permitting parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the prior limitation period excluded from the new timeline. 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. 02-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/1640/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case EXA/1640/2025 The Bombay High Court set aside all arbitral awards in consolidated proceedings involving Tata Capital Limited against Krystal Transport Service and others, finding that the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral and void ab initio per Supreme Court precedent. The court dismissed all related execution and interim applications, permitting parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the prior limitation period excluded from the new timeline. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case