Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Ramesh Ramdas Salve — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Ramesh Ramdas Salve — 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 (if any) stand dismissed / disposed; parties permitted to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, with the period from invocation of arbitration till the date of this order excluded for limitation; liberty to apply where an express written agreement waives ineligibility under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issue for consideration

Whether the arbitral awards sought to be executed in these Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications can stand, given that the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master found the appointment of the sole arbitrator to have been unilateral in all these matters, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India.

Court's answer

In view of the Supreme Court's decision relied upon, and since the appointment of the sole arbitrator was found unilateral in all these matters, 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, accordingly stand dismissed / disposed.

Key takeaways

It would be open to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.ratio¶¶16
For limitation, in initiating fresh arbitration proceedings, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till the date of this order is excluded.ratio¶¶17
Liberty reserved 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 (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Abhay Ahuja J., 30 April 2026 — Batch disposal of Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications (Ser. Nos. 903, 909–977, 979–990, 995–1000, 1004–1008, 1010–1012, 1014–1063, 1065–1077, 1079–1097, 1099–1146, 1153–1158). Matters listed following the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India (2026 SCC Online SC 7) that unilateral appointment of arbitrator is void ab initio and the 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 respective arbitral awards stand set aside, and the Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications, with connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons, if any, stand dismissed / disposed. Parties are free to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law; the period from invocation of the arbitration till the date of the order is excluded for limitation; liberty reserved to apply where an express agreement in writing, per 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).

902 to 1158.doc

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

SERIAL NOS. 903, 909 TO 977, 979 TO 990, 995 TO 1000, 1004 TO 1008, 1010 TO 1012, 1014 TO 1063, 1065 TO 1077, 1079 TO 1097, 1099 TO 1146, 1153 TO 1158

Ms. Reet Jain i/b S. I. Joshi & Co. for the Applicant in Sr. No. 1005,1008,1011,1063,1009,1135 and 1136.

Ms. Keertana Nair i/b GNP Legal for the Applicant in Sr. No. 903. Ms. Keertana Nair i/b O.M. Gujar Law Chambers for the Applicant in Sr. Nos. 980,986,1010,1012,1077,1114,1115,1146,1153,1154 to 1156. Mr. Pawan Kilnake i/b SG Legal & Associates for the Applicant in Sr. Nos. 910 to 916, 920 to 925, 927, 928, 930 to 934, 965, 1104, 1106, 1116, 1117, 1119 to 1127, 1130, 1131, 1142.

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 30^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, 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

902 to 1158.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.

Digitally NIKITA signed byNIKITAYOGESH YOGESH GADGIL GADGIL Date:2026.04.30 18:30:51 +0530

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

Nikita Gadgil 2/2