Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Rajesh Singh — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Rajesh Singh — 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 dismissed/disposed; parties permitted to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the 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 sole arbitrator's ineligibility.

Issue for consideration

Whether, the appointment of the sole arbitrator having been found unilateral by the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master, the applications must be dismissed and the respective arbitral awards set aside in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. Airports Authority of India. +2 more

Court's answer

Since in all these matters the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master found the appointment of the sole arbitrator to be unilateral, the said applications stand dismissed in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. Airports Authority of India, and the respective arbitral awards stand set aside.

Ratio / Principle

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

Key takeaways

It would be open to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.ratio¶14
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¶15
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) of the said Act.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (OOCJ), Abhay Ahuja, J. (15 April 2026) — batch order disposing Serial Nos. 901, 903, 904 and 916 to 1148. The matters were listed in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. Airports Authority of India (2026 SCC Online SC 7), observing that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is void ab initio and that 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 stand dismissed and the respective arbitral awards stand set aside; the connected Commercial Execution Applications, Interim Applications and Chamber Summons stand dismissed/disposed. Parties are 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, 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 sole arbitrator's ineligibility or the right to object under Section 12(5).

901, 903, 904, 916 to 1148.doc

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

SERIAL NOS. 901, 903, 904 AND 916 TO 1148

Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b O. M. Gujar Law Chambers for the Applicant in Sr. No. 1050,1076,1077,1078,1079,1080,1081,1117 and 1123. None present in other matters.

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 15^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 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

1 2026 SCC Online SC 7

Nikita Gadgil 1/2

901, 903, 904, 916 to 1148.doc

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.)

Digitally
signed by
NIKITA
NIKITA YOGESH
YOGESH GADGIL
GADGIL Date:
2026.04.15
20:31:37
+0530

Nikita Gadgil 2/2