SBI Cards and Payment Services Limited vs Shahalam Shaikh — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

SBI Cards and Payment Services Limited vs Shahalam Shaikh — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No execution relief granted; arbitral awards set aside. Parties at liberty to initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law; period from invocation of arbitration till the date of the order excluded for limitation; liberty to apply where an express written agreement under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 waives the ineligibility of the sole arbitrator or the right to object.

Issue for consideration

Whether execution applications founded on arbitral awards passed by a unilaterally appointed sole arbitrator can be sustained, in view of the Supreme Court's observation that unilateral appointment of arbitrator is void ab initio and the ineligibility can be raised at any stage and even in execution. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the appointment of the sole arbitrator in all these matters has been found to be unilateral, then in view of the Supreme Court decision in Bhadra International, the respective arbitral awards stand set aside and the Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications, and the connected Interim Applications as well as the Chamber Summons, if any, stand dismissed / disposed.

Ratio / Principle

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

Key takeaways

As far as limitation is concerned, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till the date of this order is to be excluded in initiating fresh arbitration proceedings.ratio¶18
Liberty to apply in the event there exists an express agreement in writing in terms of the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 waiving the ineligibility of the sole arbitrator or the right to object under Section 12(5).ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Abhay Ahuja, J. — Batch of Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications (Serial Nos. 901 to 1086 and 1090, 1094 and 1097 to 1156), listed in view of the Supreme Court decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Airports Authority of India, 2026 SCC Online SC 7, where it was observed that unilateral appointment of arbitrator is void ab initio and the ineligibility can be raised at any stage and even in execution. Since the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master found the appointment of the sole arbitrator in these matters to be unilateral, the respective arbitral awards stand set aside and the Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications, with connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons, if any, stand dismissed / disposed. Parties may initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law; the period from the invocation of the arbitration till the date of the order is excluded for limitation; liberty to apply where there exists an express agreement in writing in terms of the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 waiving the ineligibility of the sole arbitrator or the right to object under Section 12(5).

901 to 1086, 1094 & 1097 TO 1156.doc

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

SERIAL NOS. 901 TO 1086 AND 1090, 1094 AND 1097 TO 1156

Mr. Suraj C. Gupta i/b SG Legal & Associates for the Applicant in Sr. Nos. 992.

Ms. Reet Jain i/b S. I. Joshi & Co. for the Applicant in Sr. No.1016, 1058 to 1062, 1068 and 1070.

Mr. Narayan R. Awate with Ms. Seema Phadatare for the Applicant in Sr. No. 981,1026,1087 to 1089, 1100 and 1101.

Ms. Keertana Nair i/b GNP Legal for the Applicant in Sr. No. 1004, 1005, 1006, ,1011, 1014, , 1063, 1064, 1066, 1067, 1072, 1077, 1078 and 1102.

None present in other matters.

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 29^th April 2026

PC:-

All these matters have been listed in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. Airports Authority of India¹ where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that unilateral appointment of arbitrator is void ab initio and the ineligibility can be raised at any stage and even in execution.

Since in all these matters it has been found by the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court that the appointment of the

1 2026 SCC Online SC 7

Nikita Gadgil 1/2

901 to 1086, 1094 & 1097 TO 1156.doc

sole arbitrator has been unilateral, in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respective arbitral awards stand set aside and the Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications, and the connected Interim Applications as well as the Chamber Summons, if any, accordingly stand dismissed / disposed.

It would be open to 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 be excluded in initiating fresh arbitration proceedings.

Liberty to apply in the event there exists an express agreement in writing in terms of proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “said Act”) waiving the ineligibility of the sole arbitrator or the right to object under Section 12(5) of the said Act.

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

Digitally
signed by
NIKITA
NIKITA YOGESH
YOGESH GADGIL
GADGIL Date:
2026.04.30
14:30:09
+0530

Nikita Gadgil 2/2