Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2018 DAILYLAW 3368 (BOM)

INTEGRO FINSERV PVT LTD v. CFM ASSET RECONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD AND ANR

IA/4065/2022 · 2026-03-09

Shri Rajesh S Patil

Civil Appealbody2018

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Vivekanand 1/3 116-EXA-2162-2018.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 2162 OF 2018 CFM ASSET RECONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. ….. APPLICANT VERSUS SANDEEP UJALA (BORROWER) ….. RESPONDENT WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 155 OF 2018 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 2162 OF 2018 L AND T FINANCE LIMITED ….. APPLICANT VERSUS SANDEEP UJALA (BORROWER) ….. RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4065 OF 2022 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 2162 OF 2018 INTEGRO FINSERV PVT LTD ….. APPLICANT VERSUS CFM ASSET RECONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. ….. RESPONDENT None present. Vivekanand 2/3 116-EXA-2162-2018.doc CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. Date : 9th MARCH, 2026 P.C. :- 1) None appears for the applicant when the matter is called out. 2) From the proceedings, it can be gathered that the appointment of the sole arbitrator was unilateral. 3) 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. 4) In view of the aforesaid judgment, the arbitral award in the present proceeding dated passed by the sole arbitrator is hereby declared to be non-est in law, non-executable and void-ab-initio. 5) Execution Application stands dismissed. 6) In sequel, the Interim Applications, if any, also stand Vivekanand 3/3 116-EXA-2162-2018.doc disposed of. 7) It shall be open for the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law. 8) 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.)