SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED) vs DILIP JAGDISH BHAGAT — EXA/1723/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 17th April 2026.
CNR: HCBM020207372023
Filing Number
EXA/20729/2023
Filing Date
28-Jul-2023
Registration No
EXA/1723/2023
Registration Date
30-Oct-2023
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
17-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 27-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED)
Adv. Sudhir Upadhyay
Respondent(s)
-
1.DILIP JAGDISH BHAGAT
-
2.SANJAY RAMAKANAT PANDEY
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF
The Bombay High Court set aside multiple arbitral awards in consolidated matters involving Shriram Finance Limited because the sole arbitrator was appointed unilaterally, which is void ab initio under Supreme Court precedent. The court dismissed related execution and interim applications, but permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the prior period excluded from limitation calculations, unless a written agreement waiving such objections exists. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Nov-2025
For Direction
Mrs.Maheshwari Parkar, Taxing Master
-
03-Nov-2025
Mrs.Maheshwari Parkar, Taxing MasterView PDF
-
13-Oct-2025
Mrs.Maheshwari Parkar, Taxing MasterView PDF
-
06-Oct-2025
Mrs.Maheshwari Parkar, Taxing MasterView PDF
-
06-Oct-2025
For Direction
Mrs.Maheshwari Parkar, Taxing Master
-
25-Sep-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
28-Jul-2023
Case filed
Registration No. EXA/1723/2023
The Bombay High Court set aside multiple arbitral awards in consolidated matters involving Shriram Finance Limited because the sole arbitrator was appointed unilaterally, which is void ab initio under Supreme Court precedent. The court dismissed related execution and interim applications, but permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the prior period excluded from limitation calculations, unless a written agreement waiving such objections exists. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts