Tata Capital Limited (Formerly Known as Tata Capital Financial… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

Tata Capital Limited (Formerly Known as Tata Capital Financial… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The respective arbitral awards stand set aside; the Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications and the connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons stand dismissed / disposed; parties are free to initiate fresh arbitration with the period from invocation till the date of the order excluded for limitation; liberty to apply in case of an express written waiver under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issue for consideration

Whether arbitral awards passed where the sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed can stand and be enforced in execution, having regard to the Supreme Court's ruling in Bhadra International that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is void ab initio and the ineligibility can be raised at any stage, even in execution. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, since the appointment of the sole arbitrator in all these matters was found by the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master to be unilateral, the respective arbitral awards stand set aside.

Ratio / Principle

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

Key takeaways

It would be open to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.ratio¶20
For initiating fresh arbitration proceedings, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till the date of this order is to be excluded for the purposes of limitation.ratio¶21
Liberty is granted 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).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Abhay Ahuja, J. — batch disposal of Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications (board Serial Nos. 903–1151 series). The matters were 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, where the Supreme Court observed that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is void ab initio and the ineligibility can be raised at any stage, even in execution. Since the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master found that in all these matters the appointment of the sole arbitrator was unilateral, the Court set aside the respective arbitral awards and dismissed / disposed of the execution applications together with the connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons. The parties were left free to initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law; the period from the invocation of the arbitration till the date of the order was directed to be excluded for limitation; and liberty was granted to apply where an express agreement in writing under 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).

903 to 1151.doc

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

SERIAL NOS. 903, 906, 913, 916, 922, 923, 927, 928, 937,940, 942 TO 997, 999, 1011 to 1034, 1036 to 1052, 1054 TO 1065, 1068 TO 1070, 1074 TO 1090, 1092 TO 1094, 1098, 1100, 1101, 1103, 1105 TO 1113, 1115 TO 1151

Ms.Bijal Gogri i/b O. M. Gujar Law Chambers for the Applicant in Sr.Nos. 928, 940, 943, 944, 966, 967, 975, 983, 991, 992, 994, 997, 1003, 1004, 1028, 1037 to 1040, 1042, 1047 to 1051, 1054, 1055, 1062 to 1065, 1069 to 1071, 1074 to 1090, 1106, 1129 to 1132, 1134, 1139 to 1148.

Mr. Merlin Sam i/b. P. D. Jain & Co. for the Applicant in Sr. Nos. 1120, 1057 and 1118.

Ms. Reet Jain i/b. S.I. Joshi for the Applicant in Sr. nos. 905 to 907, 913, 916, 929, 931 and 933.

Mr. Narayan R. Awate a/w. Ms. Seema Phadatare for the Applicant in Sr. nos. 937, 938, 950, 968 to 974, 986, 987, 999, 1043, 1058, 1059, 1107 and 1108.

Mr. Pushkal Mishral a/w. Mr. Rakesh Singh i/b. LPJ Partners for the Applicant in Sr. No. 956.

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.

1 2026 SCC Online SC 7

Nikita Gadgil 1/2

903 to 1151.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, 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.

Digitally signed by NIKITA NIKITA YOGESH YOGESH GADGIL GADGIL Date: 2026.05.07 17:10:12 +0530

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

Nikita Gadgil 2/2