SURYODAY SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED vs BHERULAL HIRALALJI SHARMA AND 2 ORS. — EXA/3150/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 05th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020210842022

Filing Number

EXA/21078/2022

Filing Date

02-Jul-2022

Registration No

EXA/3150/2024

Registration Date

11-Nov-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

05-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.SURYODAY SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED

    Adv. GNP LEGAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BHERULAL HIRALALJI SHARMA AND 2 ORS.

  2. 2.ROSHANI BHERULAL SHARMA

  3. 3.PRAKASHCHANDRA M PUROHIT

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    —View PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside multiple arbitral awards and dismissed execution applications in cases involving Suryoday Small Finance Bank, finding that the sole arbitrators were unilaterally appointed in violation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Following Supreme Court precedent that unilateral arbitrator appointments are void ab initio, the court allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with time already spent excluded from limitation periods, subject to any written waiver agreements under Section 12(5) of the Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-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. 17-Oct-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

  5. 02-Jul-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/3150/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside multiple arbitral awards and dismissed execution applications in cases involving Suryoday Small Finance Bank, finding that the sole arbitrators were unilaterally appointed in violation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Following Supreme Court precedent that unilateral arbitrator appointments are void ab initio, the court allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with time already spent excluded from limitation periods, subject to any written waiver agreements under Section 12(5) of the Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case