Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. vs Manoj Ishwar Valmiki — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. vs Manoj Ishwar Valmiki — 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, if any, stand dismissed / disposed; the parties are free to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law, with the period from invocation of the arbitration till the date of the order excluded for limitation; liberty to apply is reserved where an express written waiver under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 exists.

Issue for consideration

Whether, the appointment of the sole arbitrator in each matter having been found unilateral by the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master, the respective arbitral awards are liable to be set aside and the Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications (with connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons) dismissed / disposed, in view of the Supreme Court decision in Bhadra International. +3 more

Court's answer

Since in all these matters the appointment of the sole arbitrator was found by the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master to have been unilateral, and in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhadra International (that unilateral appointment of arbitrator is void ab initio and the ineligibility can be raised at any stage and even in execution), 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 is to be excluded in initiating fresh arbitration proceedings.ratio¶25
The parties have liberty 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) of the said Act.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration - Unilateral appointment of sole arbitrator - Batch of Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications (Serial Nos. 901 to 910, 912 to 1022, 1024 to 1004, 1008 to 1022, 1024 to 1144 and 1151 to 1158, as printed) before the Bombay High Court - The office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master found in all matters that the appointment of the sole arbitrator had been unilateral - Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Airports Authority of India, 2026 SCC Online SC 7 (unilateral appointment of arbitrator void ab initio; ineligibility can be raised at any stage and even in execution), the Court set aside the respective arbitral awards and dismissed / disposed of the execution applications with connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons - Parties left free to initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law - Limitation: period from invocation of arbitration till the date of the order excluded in initiating fresh arbitration - Liberty to apply reserved 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) (Abhay Ahuja, J.; order dated 28 April 2026).

901 TO 910, 912 , 1024 TO 1004, 1008 TO 1022, 1024 TO 1144 AND 1151 TO 1158.doc

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

SERIAL NOS. 901 TO 910, 912 TO 1022, 1024 TO 1004, 1008 TO 1022, 1024 TO 1144 AND 1151 TO 1158

Mr. Pratik Barot with Ms. Angel Pandy i/b Kruti Bhavsar for the Respondent in Sr.No. 917.

Ms. Rahila Memon with Ms. Reet Jain i/b S. I. Joshi & Co. for the Applicant in Sr. No. 918.

Mr. Padmakar S. Garad i/b SG Legal & Associates for the Applicant in Sr. Nos. 951, 958, 991, 992, 994, 1054, 1055, 1112, 1114 to 1118 and 1152 to 1154.

Ms. Vedika Pedhambkar i/b Akhil Modi & Associates for the Applicant in Sr. Nos. 1157 and 1158.

Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b O. M. Gujar Law Chambers for the Applicant in Sr. No. 911, 916, 917,944,945,978,1022,1023,1024,1029,1030 & 1060. Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b GNP Legal for the Applicant in Sr. No. 1028.

Mr. Vaibhav V. Ugle with Mr. Shubham Pasvant for the Applicant in Sr. No. 1041 to 1044.

Ms. Asha Bose i/b Ms. Swatantri Waghmare for the Applicant in Sr. No. 1110.

None present in other matters.

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 28^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

Digitally signed by NIKITA NIKITA YOGESH YOGESH GADGIL GADGIL Date: 2026.04.28 19:03:52 +0530

Supreme Court has observed that unilateral appointment of arbitrator

1 2026 SCC Online SC 7

Nikita Gadgil 1/2

901 TO 910, 912 , 1024 TO 1004, 1008 TO 1022, 1024 TO 1144 AND 1151 TO 1158.doc

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 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.)

Nikita Gadgil 2/2

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether, the appointment of the sole arbitrator in each matter having been found unilateral by the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master, the respective arbitral awards are liable to be set aside and the Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications (with connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons) dismissed / disposed, in view of the Supreme Court decision in Bhadra International.¶23
The court held
Since in all these matters the appointment of the sole arbitrator was found by the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master to have been unilateral, and in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhadra International (that unilateral appointment of arbitrator is void ab initio and the ineligibility can be raised at any stage and even in execution), 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¶23
2.
Whether the parties remain open to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings after the existing awards are set aside.¶24
The court held
It would be open to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.ratio¶24
3.
How limitation is to be computed for initiating fresh arbitration proceedings, i.e., whether the period from invocation of the arbitration until the date of this order is excluded.¶25
The court held
As far as limitation is concerned, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till today is to be excluded in initiating fresh arbitration proceedings.ratio¶25
4.
Whether the parties retain liberty to apply despite the arbitrator's ineligibility where an express agreement in writing, in terms of the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, waives the ineligibility of the sole arbitrator or the right to object under Section 12(5).¶26
The court held
The parties have liberty 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) of the said Act.ratio¶26