Auxilo Finserve Private limited Tikshta Modi vs Neha Singh — EXA/2404/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Section Rule 11 (2). Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 08th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020271362025

e-Filing Number

26-08-2025

Filing Number

EXA/27135/2025

Filing Date

03-Sep-2025

Registration No

EXA/2404/2025

Registration Date

04-Nov-2025

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

08-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 09-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Section Rule 11 (2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Auxilo Finserve Private limited Tikshta Modi

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Neha Singh

  2. 2.Udham Sangwan

  3. 3.Baljinder Singh Sangwan

  4. 4.Kiran Sangwan

  5. 5.Saroj Balal

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple matters (serial nos. 902-925) after finding the sole arbitrator was appointed unilaterally, applying Supreme Court precedent that such appointments are void ab initio. The court dismissed all execution applications and interim applications, but permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the time period of the previous arbitration excluded from limitation calculations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Jun-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. 03-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/2404/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple matters (serial nos. 902-925) after finding the sole arbitrator was appointed unilaterally, applying Supreme Court precedent that such appointments are void ab initio. The court dismissed all execution applications and interim applications, but permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the time period of the previous arbitration excluded from limitation calculations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case