HDFC BANK LIMITED MEGHANA MILIND MURUDKAR, KISHOR CHALKE AND ASSOCIATES vs KAIRUNNISA SHAIKH (BORROWER ) — EXA/448/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020274442023

Filing Number

EXA/27434/2023

Filing Date

04-Oct-2023

Registration No

EXA/448/2024

Registration Date

13-Feb-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

17-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 27-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HDFC BANK LIMITED MEGHANA MILIND MURUDKAR, KISHOR CHALKE AND ASSOCIATES

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KAIRUNNISA SHAIKH (BORROWER )

  2. 2.NAYAB ZAHEER SHAIKH ( CO-APPLICANT)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple matters involving HDFC Bank and borrowers because the sole arbitrator was appointed unilaterally, 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, unless an express written waiver exists 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. 17-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. 04-Oct-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/448/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple matters involving HDFC Bank and borrowers because the sole arbitrator was appointed unilaterally, 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, unless an express written waiver exists 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