Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Tahir Ahmed Khan Vs Kotak Mahindra Primus Limited — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2008)

Home
Bombay HC
2008
Tahir Ahmed Khan Vs Kotak Mahindra Primus LimitedTahir Ahmed Khan v. Kotak Mahindra Primus Limited

Allowed

Tahir Ahmed Khan v. Kotak Mahindra Primus Limited

Bombay HC23 Sept 2008ARBP/55/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an ex-parte arbitral award due to improper service of the arbitration notice on the petitioner. The matter was remanded to the sole arbitrator for a fresh hearing after the petitioner waived service of notice.

What did the court decide?

The ex-parte award dated 26/4/2006 was set aside and the matter remanded to the sole arbitrator for a fresh hearing.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The ex-parte award dated 26/4/2006 was set aside and the matter remanded to the sole arbitrator for a fresh hearing.

Issue for consideration

Whether an arbitral award passed in the absence of proper service of notice on the petitioner can be sustained? +2 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Where an arbitral notice was not properly served on a party as evidenced by returned packets marked as 'NOT KNOWN' or 'CLOSED', an ex-parte award passed on the basis of such notice cannot be sustained. The award is set aside and the matter is remanded to the sole arbitrator for a fresh hearing in accordance with law.

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

A

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.55 OF 2008

Tahir Ahmed Khan

..... Petitioner.

V/s

M/s Kotak Mahindra Primus Limited

......Respondent.

Mr. Jamshed Ansari for the petitioner.

Mr. Dhiraj Singh i/b M/s. Sreeji and Lal for the respondent.

CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2008

P.C.:

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.

Petitioner has challenged an award dated 26/4/2006 passed by the sole arbitrator. It is submitted that the arbitration notice was not served on the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to para 4 of the award.

Perusal of the said award and the reasons given by the arbitrator clearly disclose that the petitioner herein was not properly served and the packets which were sent to the petitioner, came back with the remarks “NOT KNOWN”, “L EFT” and “INTIMATION-CLOSED”. From the said

2

remarks, it cannot be said that the petitioner was served with the notice dated 28/10/2005. The contention of the petitioner that the award could not have been passed for want of proper service, will have to be accepted.

The ex-parte award is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the sole arbitrator. Petitioner waives service of the notice. Petitioner and respondent shall appear before the arbitrator on 8/10/2008. The learned arbitrator may, after hearing both the sides, pass an award in accordance with law.

The arbitration petition is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

3

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether an arbitral award passed in the absence of proper service of notice on the petitioner can be sustained?
2.
Whether an ex-parte arbitral award can be set aside due to want of proper service?
3.
What is the appropriate remedy when an award is set aside due to defective service?

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Tahir Ahmed Khan
respondent
M/s Kotak Mahindra Primus Limited

Coram

AI extract

V. M. Kanade

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Bombay HC
Decided on: 23 Sept 2008 · September
Registered: 7 Feb 2008
Case no.: ARBP/55/2008
CNR: HCBM020022482008
Topic: Arbitration
Bench: V.m. Kanade
Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from V.m. Kanade

Ranjana Atul Sharma Vs M/S Enpal Aircon Technologies (I) P. Ltd.
22 Sept 2008
Raju Soma Baji Vs Suresh Vishnu Khadye
22 Sept 2008
A. Ranganath Rao Vs M/S Mukesh Bhulabhai Desai and Sudha R. Rao and Ors.
22 Sept 2008
Messrs B.K. Suchde and Sons Vs Ramesh G. Biyani and Anr.
23 Sept 2008
Alka Sovind Chandewa Vs Sovind Nathuji Chandewar
23 Sept 2008
Mr Vikas Manaktala Vs Dj S Creative Unit and 2 Ors.
23 Sept 2008

Cite this judgement

Tahir Ahmed Khan v. Kotak Mahindra Primus Limited, ARBP/55/2008 (BOM), decided on 23 September 2008.

The Bombay High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

View all statutes

Bench / Coram

V. M. Kanade

Parties & counsel