TATA CAPITAL LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD) vs RAJENDRA PRASAD GULLA RAM SAINI — EXA/557/2025

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020334102024

Filing Number

EXA/33403/2024

Filing Date

25-Oct-2024

Registration No

EXA/557/2025

Registration Date

07-Mar-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

09-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.TATA CAPITAL LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD)

    Adv. O M Gujar Law Chambers

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAJENDRA PRASAD GULLA RAM SAINI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple matters (Serial Nos. 901-920, 924) involving Tata Capital Limited because the sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed, which the court found void ab initio following Supreme Court precedent. The court dismissed all execution applications and interim applications, allowing parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the prior limitation period excluded from calculation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-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. 25-Oct-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/557/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple matters (Serial Nos. 901-920, 924) involving Tata Capital Limited because the sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed, which the court found void ab initio following Supreme Court precedent. The court dismissed all execution applications and interim applications, allowing parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the prior limitation period excluded from calculation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case