Shriram Finance Limited vs Raj Suresh Gupta — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

Shriram Finance Limited vs Raj Suresh Gupta — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respective arbitral awards set aside; execution applications with connected interim applications and chamber sums dismissed/disposed; parties free to initiate fresh arbitration, with the period from invocation till the date of this order excluded for limitation, and liberty to apply on proof of an express written waiver under proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issue for consideration

Whether arbitral awards passed under a unilaterally appointed sole arbitrator should be set aside, given the Supreme Court's observation that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is void ab initio and ineligibility can be raised at any stage, including in execution. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International, and since the appointment of the sole arbitrator was found to be unilateral, the respective arbitral awards stand set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications, and the connected Interim Applications as well as the Chamber Summons, if any, stand dismissed / disposed.

Key takeaways

It is open to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.ratio¶3
For limitation purposes, the period from the invocation of arbitration till the date of this order is excluded in initiating fresh arbitration proceedings.ratio¶4
Liberty to apply where there exists an express agreement in writing under 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).ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (OOCJ), Abhay Ahuja, J., disposes a batch of Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications (Serial Nos. 903-1151). Acting on 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 ineligibility may be raised at any stage, even in execution - and on the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master's finding that the sole arbitrator had been unilaterally appointed, the Court set aside the respective arbitral awards and dismissed/disposed the execution applications together with connected interim applications and chamber summons. Parties may initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law; the period from invocation of arbitration till the date of the order is excluded for limitation; and liberty to apply is reserved where an express agreement in writing under the proviso to Section 12(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 waives the sole arbitrator's ineligibility or the right to object under Section 12(5).

903 to 1151.doc

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

SERIAL NOS. 903, 906, 913, 916, 922, 923, 927, 928, 937,940, 942 TO 997, 999, 1011 to 1034, 1036 to 1052, 1054 TO 1065, 1068 TO 1070, 1074 TO 1090, 1092 TO 1094, 1098, 1100, 1101, 1103, 1105 TO 1113, 1115 TO 1151

Ms.Bijal Gogri i/b O. M. Gujar Law Chambers for the Applicant in Sr.Nos. 928, 940, 943, 944, 966, 967, 975, 983, 991, 992, 994, 997, 1003, 1004, 1028, 1037 to 1040, 1042, 1047 to 1051, 1054, 1055, 1062 to 1065, 1069 to 1071, 1074 to 1090, 1106, 1129 to 1132, 1134, 1139 to 1148.

Mr. Merlin Sam i/b. P. D. Jain & Co. for the Applicant in Sr. Nos. 1120, 1057 and 1118.

Ms. Reet Jain i/b. S.I. Joshi for the Applicant in Sr. nos. 905 to 907, 913, 916, 929, 931 and 933.

Mr. Narayan R. Awate a/w. Ms. Seema Phadatare for the Applicant in Sr. nos. 937, 938, 950, 968 to 974, 986, 987, 999, 1043, 1058, 1059, 1107 and 1108.

Mr. Pushkal Mishral a/w. Mr. Rakesh Singh i/b. LPJ Partners for the Applicant in Sr. No. 956.

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

903 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.

Digitally signed by NIKITA NIKITA YOGESH YOGESH GADGIL GADGIL Date: 2026.05.07 17:10:12 +0530

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

Nikita Gadgil 2/2