Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2017 DAILYLAW 2939 (BOM)

INTEGRO FINSERV PRIVATE LIMITED v. INDIRASEN RAMKRISHNA GUPTA (BORROWER) AND LOVEKUMAR B. VARMA (GUARANTOR)

CHS/722/2017 · 2026-01-23

Shri Rajesh S Patil

Civil Appealbody2017

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

KVM 1/3 4 & 7 - CHS 722 OF 2017.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 722/2017 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 646/2018 INTEGRO FINSERV PRIVATE LIMITED ….. APPLICANT IN THE MATTER BETWEEN INTEGRO FINSERV PRIVATE LIMITED ….. ORG. CLAIMANT/ DECREE HOLDER VERSUS INDIRASEN RAMKRISHNA GUPTA (BORROWER) AND LOVEKUMAR B. VARMA (GUARANTOR) ….. RESPONDENTS ALONGWITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1864/2019 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 646/2018 CFM ASSET RECONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED ….. APPLICANT IN THE MATTER BETWEEN L & T FINANCE LIMITED ….. ORG. CLAIMANT/ DECREE HOLDER VERSUS INDIRASEN RAMKRISHNA GUPTA (BORROWER) AND LOVEKUMAR B. VARMA (GUARANTOR) ….. RESPONDENTS Adv. Gaurav Jain i/b. DS Law for the Applicant. CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : 23 JANUARY, 2026 KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR Digitally signed by KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR Date: 2026.01.28 09:50:24 +0530 KVM 2/3 4 & 7 - CHS 722 OF 2017.doc P.C. :- 1) Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the execution proceedings arise out of an Arbitral Award, where the Arbitrator’s appointment was unilateral. Hence, he on instructions of his client seeks leave to withdraw the present execution application, with liberty to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings. 2) I have taken a view in the judgment of L & T Finance Ltd. vs. Sangeeta Bhansali & Anr. in Commercial Execution Application (L) No. 5277 of 2022, considering the latest judgment of the Supreme Court decided on 5 January, 2026, in the matter of Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Airport Authority of India, Civil Appeal No. 37-38 of 2026, wherein it has been held that even at the stage of execution, an arbitral award can be set aside being void-ab-initio on the grounds that the appointment of the arbitrator was unilateral. 3) Leave and liberty as prayed for, is granted. 3.1) The Arbitral Award dated 13 October, 2016 which is subject matter of the present proceedings is hereby declared to be non-est in law, non-executable and void-ab-initio. 4) Execution Application alongwith Chamber Summons KVM 3/3 4 & 7 - CHS 722 OF 2017.doc stand disposed of as withdrawn. 5) In sequel, the Interim Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 6) It shall be open for the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law. 7) As far as limitation is concerned, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till today shall stand excluded for the purpose of initiating fresh arbitration proceedings. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)