KOGTA FINANCIAL (INDIA) LTD. vs LAL SAHEB KAILASH NATH YADAV — EXA/783/2025

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020201422024

Filing Number

EXA/20134/2024

Filing Date

28-Jun-2024

Registration No

EXA/783/2025

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.LAL SAHEB KAILASH NATH YADAV

  2. 2.RAJ BAHADUR YADAV

  3. 3.DASHRATH DEVNARAYAN YADAV

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    —View PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside all arbitral awards in 250+ consolidated matters because the sole arbitrators were unilaterally appointed, following the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International that such appointments are void ab initio. The court dismissed the execution applications and permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, excluding the time period already spent in the earlier arbitration from the limitation period. 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. 28-Jun-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/783/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside all arbitral awards in 250+ consolidated matters because the sole arbitrators were unilaterally appointed, following the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International that such appointments are void ab initio. The court dismissed the execution applications and permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, excluding the time period already spent in the earlier arbitration from the limitation period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case