Neo Growth Credit PVT.LTD.2 vs Jay Enterprises (Merchant) and 2 Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Neo Growth Credit PVT.LTD.2 vs Jay Enterprises (Merchant) and 2 Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Execution Application dismissed; arbitral award declared non-est in law, non-executable and void-ab-initio; Notice and Interim Applications disposed of; parties left free to initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law, with limitation exclusion from invocation till date.

Issue for consideration

Whether the arbitral award passed by a unilaterally appointed sole arbitrator can stand or be executed even at the stage of execution. +1 more

Court's answer

The appointment of the sole arbitrator having been unilateral, the arbitral award passed in the present proceeding is declared to be non-est in law, non-executable and void-ab-initio.

Ratio / Principle

Proceeding on the Supreme Court's decision of 5 January 2026 in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airport Authority of India (as engaged with in the author's earlier L&T Finance v. Sangeeta Bhansali view): 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.

Key takeaways

For any fresh arbitration proceedings, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till today shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (OO), Rajesh S. Patil, J. [Neutral citation: 2026:BHC-OS:4323], 13 February 2026 - Notice No. 19 N/355/2025 under Order XXI, Rule 22 CPC in Execution Application EXA/599/2022 (Neo Growth Credit Pvt. Ltd. v. Jay Enterprises (Merchant) & 2 Ors.). Gathering from the proceedings that the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral, and acting on the Supreme Court's judgment of 5 January 2026 in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airport Authority of India, Civil Appeal No. 37-38 of 2026, together with the author's earlier view in L & T Finance Ltd. v. Sangeeta Bhansali, Commercial Execution Application (L) No. 5277 of 2022 (holding that even at the execution stage an award can be set aside as void-ab-initio for unilateral appointment), the arbitral award is declared non-est in law, non-executable and void-ab-initio; the Execution Application stands dismissed; the Notice and Interim Applications stand disposed of; parties may initiate fresh arbitration, with the period from invocation till date excluded for limitation.

2026:BHC-OS:4323

Diksha Rane 19 N 355 2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

19 N/355/2025 IN EXA/599/2022

NEO GROWTH CREDIT PVT.LTD.2 VS JAY ENTERPRISES (MERCHANT) AND 2 ORS

None present.

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : 13 FEBRUARY 2026.

P.C. :

This Notice is filed under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the year 2025.

None appears for the Applicant, when the matter is

called out.

From the proceedings, it can be gathered that the appointment of the sole arbitrator was unilateral.

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

1

Diksha Rane 19 N 355 2025.doc

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.

In view of the aforesaid judgment, the arbitral award in

the present proceeding passed by the sole arbitrator is hereby declared to be non-est in law, non-executable and void-ab-initio.

1. Execution Application stands dismissed.

In sequel, the Notice and the Interim Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

It shall be open for the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.

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.)

2

Signed by: Diksha Rane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 16/02/2026 15:23:31