Hdfc Bank Ltd. vs Ajmalram J Prajapati — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

Hdfc Bank Ltd. vs Ajmalram J Prajapati — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

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

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the Supreme Court's decision that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is void ab initio and the ineligibility can be raised at any stage, even in execution, the arbitral awards under execution in these matters, founded on a unilaterally appointed sole arbitrator, should be set aside.

Court's answer

In all these matters the appointment of the sole arbitrator was found (by the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master of the Court) to have been unilateral.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, the respective arbitral awards stand set aside.

Key takeaways

Consequently, the Commercial Execution / Execution Applications and the connected Interim Applications as well as the Chamber Summons, if any, stand dismissed / disposed.ratio¶16
It is open to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.obiter¶17
For initiating fresh arbitration proceedings, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till the date of this order is to be excluded for purposes of limitation.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Batch order (Serial Nos. 901 to 942, 944 to 1132, 1138, 1141 and 1145), Abhay Ahuja J., High Court of Judicature at Bombay, 17th April 2026: Allowing for the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Airports Authority of India, 2026 SCC Online SC 7, that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is void ab initio and the ineligibility can be raised at any stage, even in execution, and on the finding of the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master that in each matter the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral, the Court set aside the respective arbitral awards and dismissed / disposed the Commercial Execution / Execution Applications together with connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons, if any. Parties were left open to initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law; the period from invocation of the arbitration till the date of the order was directed to be excluded for limitation; and liberty was given 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 to 942, 944 to 1132, 1138, 1141 and 1145.doc

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

SERIAL NOS. 901 TO 942, 944 TO 1132, 1138, 1141 AND 1145

Mr. Darshit K. Jain, through VC with Ms. Nisha Parmar i/b Mr. Tushar Goradia for the Applicants in Sr. No. 902.

Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b O. M. Gujar Law Chambers for the Applicants in Sr. No. 939,941,1131,1138 and 1141 to 1145.

Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b GNPLegal for the Applicant in Sr. No.1025 & 1026. Mr. Suraj Gupta i/b SG Legal & Associates for the Applicants in Sr. No. 1046, 1091 and 1106.

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 17^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

Digitally signed by NIKITA NIKITA YOGESH YOGESH GADGIL GADGIL Date: 2026.04.17 20:47:49 +0530

Nikita Gadgil 1/2

901 to 942, 944 to 1132, 1138, 1141 and 1145.doc

and the Commercial Execution / 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.)

Nikita Gadgil 2/2