INDIA INFOLINE FINANCE LTD., DEVENDRA V NAWADKAR vs PAHAL INFOTECH (BORROWER) AND ANR. — EXA/2110/2024

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020275472022

Filing Number

EXA/27541/2022

Filing Date

26-Aug-2022

Registration No

EXA/2110/2024

Registration Date

22-Aug-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

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.INDIA INFOLINE FINANCE LTD., DEVENDRA V NAWADKAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PAHAL INFOTECH (BORROWER) AND ANR.

  2. 2.VISHAL HARSHAD TRIVEDI (CO-BORROWER I)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    The Bombay High Court dismissed all applications and set aside arbitral awards in 268 consolidated cases, finding that the sole arbitrators were unilaterally appointed in violation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Following Supreme Court precedent that unilateral arbitrator appointments are void ab initio, the court allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the prior limitation period excluded, except where parties have expressly waived such objections in writing. 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. 26-Aug-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/2110/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court dismissed all applications and set aside arbitral awards in 268 consolidated cases, finding that the sole arbitrators were unilaterally appointed in violation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Following Supreme Court precedent that unilateral arbitrator appointments are void ab initio, the court allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the prior limitation period excluded, except where parties have expressly waived such objections in writing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case