Bombay High Court
SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LIMITEDversusJAIN DILIP SAKAL CHAND
- Decided
- Disposal
- WITHDRAWN
- Bench
- RAJESH S PATIL
Holding
The arbitral award is declared non‑est in law, non‑executable and void ab initio.
Summary
The applicant, Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., filed an execution application to enforce an arbitral award against Jain Dilip Sakal Chand. The award was challenged on the ground that the arbitrator had been appointed unilaterally, rendering the award void. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airport Authority of India, the court held that an award can be set aside at the execution stage if the appointment is defective. The court also referred to its earlier judgment in L&T Finance Ltd. v. Sangeeta Bhansali. Accordingly, the court granted leave to withdraw the execution application, declared the award non‑enforceable and void ab initio, and ordered the application dismissed. The parties were permitted to commence fresh arbitration proceedings, with the period of the earlier arbitration excluded for limitation purposes.
Issues considered
- Whether an arbitral award is enforceable when the arbitrator was appointed unilaterally
- Whether an arbitral award can be set aside at the execution stage on the ground of voidness
- Whether the execution application should be withdrawn and the award declared void
Subjects
- Arbitration
- Arbitral award
- Unilateral appointment
- Void ab initio
- Execution proceedings
- Limitation period
- Fresh arbitration
Judgment
Vivekanand
1/2
25-N-574-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE NO. 574 OF 2025
IN
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 1310/2018
SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE
LIMITED ….. APPLICANT
VERSUS
JAIN DILIP SAKAL CHAND ….. RESPONDENT
Mr. Vishal Narkar, Advocate for the Applicant.
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 17th FEBRUARY, 2026
P.C. :-
1) Mr. Narkar, 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
Vivekanand
2/2
25-N-574-2025.doc
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 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 stands disposed of as withdrawn.
5) In sequel, Notice & 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.)
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.