FINTREE FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs SANKET TILES — EXA/2514/2024

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020358632023

Filing Number

EXA/35850/2023

Filing Date

22-Dec-2023

Registration No

EXA/2514/2024

Registration Date

05-Sep-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.FINTREE FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED

    Adv. SUSHIL UPADHYAY,P V Upadhyay,P V Upadhyay, ,P V Upadhyay

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SANKET TILES

  2. 2.SANKET. ARVIND DEVALIA

  3. 3.ARVIND GOVIND DEVATA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    Summary The Bombay High Court dismissed multiple consolidated matters and set aside all arbitral awards because the sole arbitrators were appointed unilaterally, which is void ab initio under Supreme Court precedent. The Court allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, excluding the time spent in the invalid arbitration from limitation periods, with an exception for cases where written waivers exist 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. 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. 16-Aug-2024

    Shri. S. B. Bhansali (Prothonotary Senior Master))View PDF

  5. 16-Aug-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 22-Dec-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/2514/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Bombay High Court dismissed multiple consolidated matters and set aside all arbitral awards because the sole arbitrators were appointed unilaterally, which is void ab initio under Supreme Court precedent. The Court allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, excluding the time spent in the invalid arbitration from limitation periods, with an exception for cases where written waivers exist 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