Hdfc Bank Limited vs Mohdrafiq Mohdirfan Sayyed — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

Hdfc Bank Limited vs Mohdrafiq Mohdirfan Sayyed — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respective arbitral awards set aside; Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications and connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons dismissed / disposed; parties permitted to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law; period from invocation of arbitration till 23 April 2026 excluded for limitation purposes; liberty to apply where an express agreement in writing waives the ineligibility of the sole arbitrator or the right to object under Section 12(5).

Issue for consideration

Whether the arbitral awards in these matters, obtained under a unilaterally appointed sole arbitrator, should be set aside and the related execution applications dismissed / disposed. +2 more

Court's answer

Since in all these matters the appointment of the sole arbitrator was found by the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master to be unilateral, in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Airports Authority of India, 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, stand accordingly dismissed / disposed.

Key takeaways

It is open to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.ratio¶18
As far as limitation is concerned, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till today is to be excluded in initiating fresh arbitration proceedings.ratio¶19
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

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (OOCJ), Abhay Ahuja, J. (23 April 2026) — Batch order in Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications, Serial Nos. 901 to 903 and 905 to 1150. Acting on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. Airports Authority of India (2026 SCC Online SC 7), that unilateral appointment of arbitrator is void ab initio and ineligibility can be raised at any stage, even in execution, and on the finding of the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master that in all these matters the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral, the Court set aside the respective arbitral awards and dismissed / disposed of the execution applications together with connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons. Parties were left free to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law, with the period from invocation of arbitration till the date of the order excluded for limitation. Liberty was reserved to apply where an express agreement in writing exists, 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 903 and 905 to 1150.doc

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

SERIAL NOS. 901 TO 903 AND 905 to 1150

Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b GNP Legal for the Applicant in Sr. No. 1068. Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b O.M. Gujar Law Chambers for the Applicant in Sr. No.1006, 1007, 1024 and 1025

Mr. Suraj Gupta i/b SG Legal & Associates for the Applicant in Sr. No. 910, 911, 1009, 1018, 1019, 1089, 1093, 1096, 1098, 1100, 1103, 1105, 1106, 1107, 1109 to 1116, 1022 and 1023. None present in other matters.

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 23^rd 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 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,

1 2026 SCC Online SC 7

NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL

Digitally signed by NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL Date: 2026.04.23 16:41:27 +0530

Nikita Gadgil 1/2

901 to 903 and 905 to 1150.doc

and the connected Interim Applications as well as the Chamber Summons, if any, stand accordingly 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.)

Nikita Gadgil 2/2