AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD., vs OM SAI TOURS AND TRAVELS AND 2 ORS. — EXA/214/2023

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020199122022

Filing Number

EXA/19906/2022

Filing Date

23-Jun-2022

Registration No

EXA/214/2023

Registration Date

18-Feb-2023

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 11 (2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD.,

    Adv. Devendra Vitthal Nawadkar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.OM SAI TOURS AND TRAVELS AND 2 ORS.

  2. 2.VANEET PRABHAKAR KAMBLE

  3. 3.RANJAN MADHAV NAIK

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    —View PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple cases involving AU Small Finance Bank and others, finding that the sole arbitrators were unilaterally appointed in violation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Following Supreme Court precedent that unilateral arbitrator appointments are void ab initio, the court dismissed all related execution and interim applications. The parties are permitted to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the time period already spent excluded from limitation calculations, unless they have a written agreement waiving the ineligibility objection. 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. 23-Jun-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/214/2023

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple cases involving AU Small Finance Bank and others, finding that the sole arbitrators were unilaterally appointed in violation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Following Supreme Court precedent that unilateral arbitrator appointments are void ab initio, the court dismissed all related execution and interim applications. The parties are permitted to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the time period already spent excluded from limitation calculations, unless they have a written agreement waiving the ineligibility objection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case