SBI CARDS AND PAYMENT SERVICES LIMITED SINGH MEHENDRA PRATAP vs SUNDER BAJAJ — EXA/1406/2025

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020205122025

Filing Number

EXA/20511/2025

Filing Date

07-Jul-2025

Registration No

EXA/1406/2025

Registration Date

31-Jul-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.SBI CARDS AND PAYMENT SERVICES LIMITED SINGH MEHENDRA PRATAP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SUNDER BAJAJ

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    —View PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside all arbitral awards in these consolidated matters (Serial Nos. 902-1151) involving SBI Cards and Payment Services Limited, Singh Mehendra Pratap, and Sunder Bajaj, finding that the sole arbitrator appointments were unilateral and void ab initio per Supreme Court precedent. The court dismissed all execution and interim applications, but permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the prior limitation period excluded from new timelines, unless parties had expressly waived ineligibility objections 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. 07-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/1406/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside all arbitral awards in these consolidated matters (Serial Nos. 902-1151) involving SBI Cards and Payment Services Limited, Singh Mehendra Pratap, and Sunder Bajaj, finding that the sole arbitrator appointments were unilateral and void ab initio per Supreme Court precedent. The court dismissed all execution and interim applications, but permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the prior limitation period excluded from new timelines, unless parties had expressly waived ineligibility objections 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