Sundaram Finance Limited vs Ganpat Baban Waphare — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

Sundaram Finance Limited vs Ganpat Baban Waphare — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respective arbitral awards set aside; Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications, connected interim applications and chamber summonses (if any) dismissed / disposed; parties 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 arbitral awards founded on a unilateral appointment of the sole arbitrator must be set aside and the execution applications dismissed / disposed, in view of the Supreme Court decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Airports Authority of India. +2 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 Supreme Court decision that unilateral appointment of arbitrator is void ab initio and 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 accordingly stand dismissed / disposed.

Ratio / Principle

The connected Interim Applications as well as the Chamber Summons, if any, in these matters likewise stand dismissed / disposed.

Key takeaways

It would be open to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.ratio¶12
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¶13
Liberty is given 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).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Batch order, High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Abhay Ahuja J., dated 5 May 2026, covering Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications (Serial Nos. 902-1148). Acting on the Supreme Court decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Airports Authority of India (2026 SCC Online SC 7) - that unilateral appointment of arbitrator is void ab initio and ineligibility can be raised at any stage and even in execution - and on the finding of the Office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master that the appointment of the sole arbitrator was unilateral in these matters, the Court set aside the respective arbitral awards and the execution applications, connected interim applications and chamber summonses stood dismissed / disposed. Parties were left free to initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law, with the period from invocation of arbitration till the date of the order excluded for limitation, and 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. None appeared for the parties.

902 to 1148.doc

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

SERIAL NOS. 902 TO 909, 911 TO 924, 926 TO 938, 941 TO 981, 983 TO 988, 993 TO 1002, 1005, 1007 TO 1021, 1023 TO 1026, 1032 TO 1047, 1049 TO 1073, 1075 TO 1110, 1113 TO 1135, 1137 TO 1148

None appears for the parties.

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 5^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.

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.

1 2026 SCC Online SC 7

Nikita Gadgil 1/2

902 to 1148.doc

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.

NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

Digitally signed by NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL Date: 2026.05.06 19:15:11 +0530

Nikita Gadgil 2/2