SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD vs RIZWAN AHMAD ANSARI AND ANR — EXA/111/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020410492025

Filing Number

EXA/41048/2025

Filing Date

16-Dec-2025

Registration No

EXA/111/2026

Registration Date

05-Feb-2026

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.SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD

    Adv. Disha Karambar and Associates

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RIZWAN AHMAD ANSARI AND ANR

  2. 2.RIZWAN AHMAD ANSARI S/O MOHD ANWAR ANSARI

  3. 3.FAISAL N SIDDIIQE S/O MR SIDDIIQE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    The Bombay High Court dismissed multiple consolidated applications and set aside arbitral awards where sole arbitrators were appointed unilaterally, following the Supreme Court's decision in *Bhadra International* that such appointments are void ab initio and ineligibility can be raised at any stage. The court allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the time period already spent excluded from the limitation period, provided no express written agreement waiving such ineligibility exists. 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-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/111/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court dismissed multiple consolidated applications and set aside arbitral awards where sole arbitrators were appointed unilaterally, following the Supreme Court's decision in *Bhadra International* that such appointments are void ab initio and ineligibility can be raised at any stage. The court allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the time period already spent excluded from the limitation period, provided no express written agreement waiving such ineligibility exists. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case