SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED vs SHOHRABIRSHAD ALI KHAN S/O. MR. IRSHADALI VASHIR AHMAD KHAN — EXA/283/2025

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020206422024

Filing Number

EXA/20634/2024

Filing Date

02-Jul-2024

Registration No

EXA/283/2025

Registration Date

31-Jan-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 07-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.SHOHRABIRSHAD ALI KHAN S/O. MR. IRSHADALI VASHIR AHMAD KHAN

  2. 2.ISHRAT SHORAB KHAN W/O. SHORAB KHAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    —View PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside all arbitral awards in 250+ consolidated cases where sole arbitrators were appointed unilaterally, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Bhadra International that such appointments are void ab initio. The court dismissed execution applications and permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, with the prior arbitration period excluded from limitation calculations, unless parties had expressly waived 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. 01-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajesh S. PatilView PDF

  4. 01-Apr-2026

    For Dismissal Under Rule 329

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajesh S. Patil

  5. 02-Jul-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/283/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside all arbitral awards in 250+ consolidated cases where sole arbitrators were appointed unilaterally, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Bhadra International that such appointments are void ab initio. The court dismissed execution applications and permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, with the prior arbitration period excluded from limitation calculations, unless parties had expressly waived 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