Axis Bank (Formerly Known as Uti Bank Ltd.) vs Amresh R Yadav — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

Axis Bank (Formerly Known as Uti Bank Ltd.) vs Amresh R Yadav — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Arbitral awards set aside; Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications and connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons dismissed / disposed; liberty to initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law; limitation period from invocation of arbitration till order date excluded; 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 or the right to object.

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the Supreme Court decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India that unilateral appointment of arbitrator is void ab initio and the ineligibility can be raised at any stage and even in execution, the arbitral awards in these matters — where the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master found the sole arbitrator's appointment to be unilateral — should be set aside and the Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications dismissed.

Court's answer

Since in all these matters the appointment of the sole arbitrator was found unilateral, in view of the above Supreme Court decision the respective arbitral awards stand set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications, and the connected Interim Applications as well as the Chamber Summons, if any, accordingly stand dismissed / disposed.

Key takeaways

It is open to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.ratio¶19
As far as limitation is concerned, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till today (the date of this order) is to be excluded in initiating fresh arbitration proceedings.ratio¶20
Liberty is reserved to the parties 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 sole arbitrator's ineligibility or the right to object under Section 12(5).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Batch order — Execution matters (Board Serial Nos. 912-934, 936-939, 941-945, 947-950, 953-959, 961-969, 972-995, 997-1035), Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Abhay Ahuja, J., 08.05.2026: Listing these Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications in view of the Supreme Court decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India (footnoted as 2026 SCC Online SC 7), which observed that unilateral appointment of arbitrator is void ab initio and the ineligibility can be raised at any stage and even in execution, and upon the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master finding the appointment of the sole arbitrator to be unilateral in all these matters, the Court set aside the respective arbitral awards and the execution applications, connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons stood dismissed / disposed. Parties permitted to initiate fresh arbitration; the period from invocation of arbitration till the order date excluded for limitation; liberty to apply where an express agreement in writing in terms of the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 waives the sole arbitrator's ineligibility or the right to object under Section 12(5).

912 TO 1035.doc

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

SERIAL NOS. 912 TO 934, 936 TO 939, 941 TO 945, 947 TO 950, 953 TO 959, 961 TO 969, 972 TO 995, 997 TO 1035

Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b O.M. Gujar Law Chambers for the Applicant in Sr. Nos. 974,975,976,977,985,1008,1010,1012,1013,1015 to 1023, 1032 and 1033.

Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b GNP Legal for the Applicant in Sr. No. 1007. Ms. Shrutika Mane with Ms. Reet Jain i/b S. I. Joshi & Co. for the Applicant in Sr. No. 972 and 1003.

Ms. Jenny Somaiya i/b Akhil Modi & Associates for the Appliant in Sr. No. 1005.

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 8^th MAY, 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 sole arbitrator has been unilateral, in view of the above decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respective arbitral awards stand set aside

1 2026 SCC Online SC 7

Nikita Gadgil 1/2

912 TO 1035.doc

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: 2026.05.11 15:50:07 +0530

Nikita Gadgil 2/2