SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED vs SAROJ SHIV SINGH YADAV S/O. MR. SHIV SINGH YADAV — EXA/3373/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 15th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020206402024

Filing Number

EXA/20632/2024

Filing Date

02-Jul-2024

Registration No

EXA/3373/2024

Registration Date

07-Dec-2024

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

15-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 25-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED

    Adv. Disha Karambar and Associates

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SAROJ SHIV SINGH YADAV S/O. MR. SHIV SINGH YADAV

  2. 2.SANTOSH KUMAR CHANDRABALI PANEDY S/O. MR. CHANDRABALI DAMODHAR PANDEY

  3. 3.SUARABH SHIV SINGH YADAV

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    The Bombay High Court dismissed multiple applications and set aside arbitral awards where the sole arbitrator's appointment was found to be unilateral, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International that such appointments are void ab initio. The court allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the earlier period excluded from the limitation period, unless there was an express written agreement waiving the ineligibility objection 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. 15-Apr-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-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/3373/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court dismissed multiple applications and set aside arbitral awards where the sole arbitrator's appointment was found to be unilateral, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International that such appointments are void ab initio. The court allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the earlier period excluded from the limitation period, unless there was an express written agreement waiving the ineligibility objection 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