Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited Authorized Signatory Malhar Kulkarni… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited Authorized Signatory Malhar Kulkarni… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applications dismissed and respective arbitral awards set aside; Commercial Execution Applications, connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons disposed; parties permitted to initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law, with the period from invocation of arbitration till today excluded for limitation; liberty to apply under the proviso to Section 12(5) where an express written waiver exists.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Commercial Execution Applications seeking enforcement of arbitral awards passed pursuant to a unilateral appointment of the sole arbitrator can be maintained, in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India. +3 more

Court's answer

Since the appointment of the sole arbitrator in all these matters was found to be unilateral, the applications, in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International, stand dismissed and the respective arbitral awards stand set aside.

Ratio / Principle

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

Key takeaways

It is open to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.ratio¶3
For initiating fresh arbitration proceedings, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till today is to be excluded for the purposes of limitation.ratio¶4
Liberty to apply is granted 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

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (OOCJ), Abhay Ahuja, J., 26 March 2026: Batch of Commercial Execution Applications (Serial Nos. 901-996) listed in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, 2026 SCC Online SC 7, that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is void ab initio and ineligibility can be raised at any stage, even in execution. As the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master found the appointment of the sole arbitrator unilateral in all these matters, the applications stood dismissed and the respective arbitral awards stood set aside; the Commercial Execution Applications, connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons stood disposed. Parties were left free to initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law, with the period from invocation of arbitration till the date of the order excluded for limitation, and with liberty to apply where an express agreement in writing 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 under Section 12(5).

901 TO 996.doc

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

SERIAL NOS. 901 TO 996

Mr.Nilkanth Gadge i/by Mr.Narayan Awate, Advocate for the Applicants in Sr.Nos. 901, 910 to 912, 917, 941, 956 to 962, 971, 972, 974, 977 to 980, 983, 984, 988 and 989.

Mr.Suraj Gupta i/by S.G.Legal & Associates, Advocate for the Applicant / Claimant in Sr.Nos. 930, 940, 973, 981, 982 and 985.

Mr.Avanish Bangera h/f. Disha Karambar & Associates, Advocate for the Applicant in Sr.Nos.963, 964, 965 and 966.

None for the Applicants in Sr.Nos.902 to 909, 913 to 916, 918 to 929, 931 to 939, 941 to 955, 967 to 970, 972, 975, 976, 986, 987, 990 to 996.

None for the Respondents in all the matters.

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 26^th MARCH 2026

P.C. :

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.

1 2026 SCC Online SC 7

avk 1/2

901 TO 996.doc

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, the said applications, in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, stand dismissed. The respective arbitral awards stand set aside and the Commercial Execution Applications and the connected Interim Applications as well as the Chamber Summons, if any, stand accordingly 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 ARTI ARTI VILAS VILAS KHATATE KHATATE Date: 2026.03.27 16:04:41 +0530

avk 2/2