Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., vs Blessen Mathew — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., vs Blessen Mathew — 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 free to initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law; 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 or the right to object under Section 12(5).

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India that unilateral appointment of arbitrator is void ab initio and the ineligibility can be raised at any stage and even in execution, the arbitral awards in these matters — where the sole arbitrator's appointment was found to be unilateral — can stand. +2 more

Court's answer

Since in all these matters the appointment of the sole arbitrator was found to be unilateral, and 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.

Ratio / Principle

It would be open to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

As far as limitation is concerned, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till today (the date of this order) stands excluded for purposes of initiating fresh arbitration proceedings.ratio¶20
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.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction (Abhay Ahuja, J.; 4 May 2026) — batch disposal of Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications, Serial Nos. 902 to 1151. The matters were listed in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Airports Authority of India, 2026 SCC Online SC 7, observing that unilateral appointment of arbitrator is void ab initio and the ineligibility can be raised at any stage and even in execution. Upon the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master finding that in all these matters the appointment of the sole arbitrator had been unilateral, the Court set aside the respective arbitral awards and the execution applications, connected interim applications and chamber summons stood dismissed / disposed. Parties were left free to initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law; the period from invocation of the arbitration till the date of the order was excluded for limitation; and liberty to apply was granted where an express written agreement exists in terms of the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 waiving the sole arbitrator's ineligibility or the right to object under Section 12(5).

902 to 1151.doc

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

SERIAL NOS. 902 TO 907, 909 TO 913, 916 TO 1009, 1011 TO 1025, 1027 TO 1031, 1033 TO 1046, 1051 TO 1053 TO 1055 TO 1060, 1062 TO 1151

Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b O. M. Gujar Law Chambers for the Applicant in Sr. Nos. 902, 909, 913, 962 to 965, 1026 to 1029, 1031 to 1033, 1047, 1049, 1050, 1054 to 1056, 1059, 1060, 1061, 1068, 1092, 1096, 1149, 1150.

Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b GNP Legal for the Applicant in Sr. Nos. 975, 976, 1007, 1029, 1030.

Ms. Shrutika Mane with Ms. Reet Jain i/b S. I. Joshi & Co. for the Applicant in Sr. Nos. 992, 1053 & 1058.

Mr. Pravin Singh i/b Mr. Ashok Singh for the Applicant in Sr. No. 1062. Mr. Narayan R. Awate with Ms. Seema Phadatare for the Applicant in Sr.Nos. 1148, 935, 936, 937, 1046, 1070, 1136, 1137, 1143, 1144, 1146, 1147.

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 4^th MAY, 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.

1 2026 SCC Online SC 7

Nikita Gadgil 1/2

902 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.

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

Digitally
signed by
NIKITA
NIKITA YOGESH
YOGESH GADGIL
GADGIL Date:
2026.05.05
16:41:55
+0530

Nikita Gadgil 2/2