SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED) vs ISHWAR KUMAR SINGH (BORROWER) — EXA/220/2024

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020280572023

Filing Number

EXA/28045/2023

Filing Date

09-Oct-2023

Registration No

EXA/220/2024

Registration Date

05-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.SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED)

    Adv. Sudhir Upadhyay

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ISHWAR KUMAR SINGH (BORROWER)

  2. 2.MUKESH DAULATRAM SINGADIYA PROP SACHI TOUR AND TRAVELS (GUARANTOR)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside the arbitral award in this case (along with multiple related matters) because the sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed in violation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Following Supreme Court precedent that such appointments are void ab initio, the court dismissed all execution and related applications and permitted the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, with the prior arbitration period excluded from limitation calculations. 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. 09-Oct-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/220/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside the arbitral award in this case (along with multiple related matters) because the sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed in violation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Following Supreme Court precedent that such appointments are void ab initio, the court dismissed all execution and related applications and permitted the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, with the prior arbitration period 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