KOGTA FINANCIAL(INDIA) LTD. vs ARISHA ARAAM TOURS AND TRAVELS — EXA/778/2025

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020201332024

Filing Number

EXA/20125/2024

Filing Date

27-Jun-2024

Registration No

EXA/778/2025

Registration Date

19-Apr-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.KOGTA FINANCIAL(INDIA) LTD.

    Adv. Advocate Priya Rita

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ARISHA ARAAM TOURS AND TRAVELS

  2. 2.HAIDERALI ABDULHAYAT ANSARI

  3. 3.ABID MOHD SADIK ANSARI

  4. 4.H D RAJU DEVRAJ GAWDA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    —View PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside multiple arbitral awards (Serial Nos. 902-1151) and dismissed related execution applications because the sole arbitrators were appointed unilaterally, which is void ab initio under the Supreme Court's Bhadra International precedent. The court permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the limitation period excluded, unless there was an express written waiver under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 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. 27-Jun-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/778/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside multiple arbitral awards (Serial Nos. 902-1151) and dismissed related execution applications because the sole arbitrators were appointed unilaterally, which is void ab initio under the Supreme Court's Bhadra International precedent. The court permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the limitation period excluded, unless there was an express written waiver under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case