SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED (FORMELY KNOWN AS SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED) vs ALOK RAVINDRANATH KESARI — EXA/1061/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 23rd April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020234592023

Filing Number

EXA/23451/2023

Filing Date

24-Aug-2023

Registration No

EXA/1061/2024

Registration Date

03-Jun-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

23-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 29-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED (FORMELY KNOWN AS SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED)

    Adv. adv amol shinde

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ALOK RAVINDRANATH KESARI

  2. 2.RAJKUMAR PYARELAL GUPTA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    Case Summary: EXA/1061/2024 The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple matters (including Shriram Finance Limited's case against Alok Kesari and Rajkumar Gupta) because the sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed, which is void ab initio under Supreme Court precedent. The Court dismissed all execution applications and interim applications, permitting parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the prior limitation period excluded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-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. 24-Aug-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/1061/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: EXA/1061/2024 The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple matters (including Shriram Finance Limited's case against Alok Kesari and Rajkumar Gupta) because the sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed, which is void ab initio under Supreme Court precedent. The Court dismissed all execution applications and interim applications, permitting parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the prior limitation period excluded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case