BAJAJ FINANCE LTD. THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER GIRISH KUMAR PANDEY vs MANOJ NARAYAN POL — EXA/93/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 11(2). Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020216732022

Filing Number

EXA/21667/2022

Filing Date

07-Jul-2022

Registration No

EXA/93/2023

Registration Date

20-Jan-2023

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla

Bench Type

Single

Category

EXECUTION ( 15 )

Judicial Branch

Original

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED

Last updated 10-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 11(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BAJAJ FINANCE LTD. THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER GIRISH KUMAR PANDEY

    Adv. Devendra Vitthal Nawadkar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MANOJ NARAYAN POL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze PooniwallaView PDF

    Summary The Bombay High Court dismissed Bajaj Finance Ltd.'s execution application and set aside the arbitral award because the sole arbitrator was appointed unilaterally, which is void ab initio under the Supreme Court's Bhadra International precedent. The court allowed the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the time period from the original invocation excluded from the limitation period, unless there is a written waiver agreement 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. 09-Apr-2026

    For Dismissal in view of decision in Bhadra International Pvt. Ltd. V/s Airports Authority of India

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla

  4. 07-Jul-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/93/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Bombay High Court dismissed Bajaj Finance Ltd.'s execution application and set aside the arbitral award because the sole arbitrator was appointed unilaterally, which is void ab initio under the Supreme Court's Bhadra International precedent. The court allowed the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the time period from the original invocation excluded from the limitation period, unless there is a written waiver agreement 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