6-EXA-806-2017 (OS).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY MAYURsigned ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION MAYUR DigitallybyKONDIRAMADANEKONDIRAM ADANE Date:2026.08.2819:29:21+0530 EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 806 OF 2017 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 105 OF 2017 Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. ...Applicant Versus Yuvraj Annasaheb Bhosale (borrower) And Anr ...Respondents __________ Ms. Disha Karambar i/by Disha Karambar & Associates for the Applicant. __________ CORAM : ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE : 28th AUGUST 2026 P.C.: 1. Ms. Disha Karambar, learned Counsel for the Applicant, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw this Application. 2. From the record, it further appears that this Application is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of BhadraInternational (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Airport Authority of India1. The Supreme Court has held therein that an arbitral award can be set aside as being void ab initio on the ground that the arbitrator was unilaterally appointed. 3. According to the Supreme Court, a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter. Any decision passed by a Court lacking jurisdiction would be coram non judice, since a Court 1 Civil Appeal Nos. 37-38 of 2026 decided on 5th January 2026. Mayur Page 1 of 2 6-EXA-806-2017 (OS).doc

cannot confer jurisdiction upon itself. No act of the parties can cure an inherent lack of jurisdiction. In view thereof, all the proceedings, including the execution proceedings, are rendered non est. The issue therefore is no longer resintegra. 4. Similar view has been consistently taken by this Court in various decisions, including the order in L & T Finance Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Bhansali&Anr.2. 5. In the above backdrop, leave is granted to the Applicant to withdraw the said proceedings. 6. However, it would be open to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, if necessary, in accordance with law. 7. As far as the issue of limitation is concerned, the period commencing from the date of invocation of arbitration until the date of this order shall stand excluded, in the event fresh proceedings are initiated by the parties. 8. With the above observations and directions, the Application stand Disposed of as withdrawn. 9. Consequently, the Interim Applications, if any, would not survive and stand Disposed of. [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] 2 Commercial Execution Application (L) No.5277 of 2022, decided on 17th January 2026. Mayur Page 2 of 2

6-EXA-806-2017 (OS).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY MAYURsigned ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION MAYUR DigitallybyKONDIRAMADANEKONDIRAM ADANE Date:2026.08.2819:29:21+0530 EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 806 OF 2017 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 105 OF 2017 Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. ...Applicant Versus Yuvraj Annasaheb Bhosale (borrower) And Anr ...Respondents __________ Ms. Disha Karambar i/by Disha Karambar & Associates for the Applicant. __________ CORAM : ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE : 28th AUGUST 2026 P.C.: 1. Ms. Disha Karambar, learned Counsel for the Applicant, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw this Application. 2. From the record, it further appears that this Application is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of BhadraInternational (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Airport Authority of India1. The Supreme Court has held therein that an arbitral award can be set aside as being void ab initio on the ground that the arbitrator was unilaterally appointed. 3. According to the Supreme Court, a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter. Any decision passed by a Court lacking jurisdiction would be coram non judice, since a Court 1 Civil Appeal Nos. 37-38 of 2026 decided on 5th January 2026. Mayur Page 1 of 2 6-EXA-806-2017 (OS).doc

cannot confer jurisdiction upon itself. No act of the parties can cure an inherent lack of jurisdiction. In view thereof, all the proceedings, including the execution proceedings, are rendered non est. The issue therefore is no longer resintegra. 4. Similar view has been consistently taken by this Court in various decisions, including the order in L & T Finance Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Bhansali&Anr.2. 5. In the above backdrop, leave is granted to the Applicant to withdraw the said proceedings. 6. However, it would be open to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, if necessary, in accordance with law. 7. As far as the issue of limitation is concerned, the period commencing from the date of invocation of arbitration until the date of this order shall stand excluded, in the event fresh proceedings are initiated by the parties. 8. With the above observations and directions, the Application stand Disposed of as withdrawn. 9. Consequently, the Interim Applications, if any, would not survive and stand Disposed of. [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] 2 Commercial Execution Application (L) No.5277 of 2022, decided on 17th January 2026. Mayur Page 2 of 2