SBI Cards and Payments Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Ravindra Kondalkar — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

SBI Cards and Payments Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Ravindra Kondalkar — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Arbitral award dated 13.07.2018 passed by the sole arbitrator declared non-est in law, non-executable and void-ab-initio; Execution Application No. 497 of 2022 along with Notice No. 367 of 2025 dismissed; Interim Applications, if any, disposed of; parties left free to initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law, with the period from invocation of arbitration till the order date excluded for limitation.

Issue for consideration

Whether an arbitral award passed by a unilaterally appointed sole arbitrator can be set aside as void-ab-initio and treated as non-est and non-executable at the stage of execution. +1 more

Court's answer

The arbitral award dated 13.07.2018 passed by the sole arbitrator is declared non-est in law, non-executable and void-ab-initio, the appointment of the arbitrator having been unilateral.

Ratio / Principle

For initiating fresh arbitration proceedings, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till the date of this order shall stand excluded for limitation purposes.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Rajesh S. Patil J., order dated 03.02.2026 in Notice No. 367 of 2025 in Execution Application No. 497 of 2022 — SBI Cards And Payments Services Pvt. Ltd. (applicant) v. Ravindra Kondalkar (respondent). None appeared for the applicant when the matter was called out. Noting from the proceedings that the appointment of the sole arbitrator was unilateral, and acting on the view taken by the Court in L & T Finance Ltd. v. Sangeeta Bhansali & Anr. (Commercial Execution Application (L) No. 5277 of 2022), which considered the Supreme Court's judgment dated 5 January 2026 in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airport Authority of India (Civil Appeal No. 37-38 of 2026) — that even at the stage of execution an arbitral award can be set aside as void-ab-initio where the arbitrator's appointment was unilateral — the Court declared the arbitral award dated 13.07.2018 passed by the sole arbitrator to be non-est in law, non-executable and void-ab-initio. The Execution Application and the Notice were dismissed; the Interim Applications, if any, stood disposed of. The parties were left free to initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law, with the period from the invocation of arbitration till the date of the order excluded for limitation.

N 367-2025.doc

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

NOTICE NO. 367 OF 2025 IN

EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 497 OF 2022

ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME

SBI Cards And Payments Services Pvt. Ltd. ..Applicant

Versus

Ravindra Kondalkar ..Respondent

Digitally signed by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME

Date: 2026.02.04 18:58:20 +0530

None present

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

DATE : 03.02.2026

P. C.

1. None appears for the applicant when the matter is called out.

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

1. 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.

1 of 2

Anand

N 367-2025.doc

1. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the arbitral award in the present proceeding dated 13.07.2018 passed by the sole arbitrator is hereby declared to be non-est in law, non-executable and void-ab-initio.

1. Execution Application along with Notice stand dismissed .

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

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

1. 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 of 2

Anand