MAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED vs PEACOCK PACKAGING INDUSTRIES — EXA/45/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020235412025

Filing Number

EXA/23539/2025

Filing Date

30-Jul-2025

Registration No

EXA/45/2026

Registration Date

08-Jan-2026

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

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 10-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

    Adv. SG Legal and Associates

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PEACOCK PACKAGING INDUSTRIES

  2. 2.MAHENDRA UMASHANKAR TIWARI

  3. 3.ADARSH RAHUL BHIMRAJKA

  4. 4.SHEELV UMASITPRASAD TIWARI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    The Bombay High Court dismissed multiple consolidated applications and set aside all arbitral awards because the sole arbitrators were unilaterally appointed, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Bhadra International that such appointments are void ab initio. The court permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the time period already spent excluded from the limitation period, unless there is a written agreement waiving the ineligibility objection. 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 Abhay Ahuja

  4. 30-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/45/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court dismissed multiple consolidated applications and set aside all arbitral awards because the sole arbitrators were unilaterally appointed, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Bhadra International that such appointments are void ab initio. The court permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the time period already spent excluded from the limitation period, unless there is a written agreement waiving the ineligibility objection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case