Avanse Financial Services Ltd. vs Anitya Kumar Gupta — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

Avanse Financial Services Ltd. vs Anitya Kumar Gupta — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Parties are free to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law; limitation benefit granted in that the period from invocation of arbitration till today is excluded for initiating fresh arbitration; liberty to apply reserved where an express written waiver under proviso to Section 12(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 exists.

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the Supreme Court decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is void ab initio and challengeable even in execution, arbitral awards in matters where the sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed should be set aside and the pending Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications (with connected interim applications and chamber summonses) should be dismissed / disposed of. +3 more

Court's answer

In view of the Supreme Court decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, the respective arbitral awards in all these matters stand set aside, since the appointment of the sole arbitrator therein was found by the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master to have been unilateral.

Ratio / Principle

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

Key takeaways

It is open to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.ratio¶20
For limitation purposes, in initiating fresh arbitration proceedings the period from the invocation of the arbitration till today is to be excluded.ratio¶21
Liberty to apply is given 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

Bombay High Court (Abhay Ahuja, J.) — batch order dated 7 May 2026 disposing of Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications at Serial Nos. 903–1091 (as listed): All matters were listed in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Airports Authority of India (2026 SCC Online SC 7), where the Supreme Court observed that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is void ab initio and the ineligibility can be raised at any stage, even in execution. Having regard to the finding of the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master that the sole arbitrator had been unilaterally appointed in all these matters, the Court set aside the respective arbitral awards and dismissed / disposed of the Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications together with connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons, if any. Parties were left open to initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law, with the period from invocation of arbitration till today excluded for limitation; liberty to apply was given where an express agreement in writing under proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 waives the arbitrator's ineligibility or the right to object under Section 12(5).

903 to 1091.doc

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

SERIAL NOS.903, 904, 906 to 908, 910, 911, 913, 914, 923, 924, 931 932, 939 TO 941, 943, 944, 946, 951 TO 965, 969 TO 971, 973 TO 986, 991 TO 993, 999 TO 1002, 1004 TO 1009, 1013 TO 1022, 1024 TO 1065 AND 1069 TO 1091

Ms.Bijal Gogri i/b O. M. Gujar Law Chambers for the Applicant in Sr.Nos. 904,959,974,977,978,980 to 986, 991 to 993, 999, 1001, 1002, 1004, 1005, 1009, 1028 to 1031, 1034, 1035, 1038, 1040 to 1054. 1066, 1068, 1085 to 1089.

Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b GNP Legal for the Applicant in Sr. Nos. 976, 979, 1013 and 1066.

Ms. Simran J. Raj i/b Tikshta Modi for the Applicant in Sr. No. 969, 973 and 975 and 54.

Mr. Suraj Gupta i/b SG Legal & Associates for the Appliant in Sr. No. 1091.

Ms. Reet Jain i/b S. I. Joshi & Co. for the Applicant in Sr. No. 905, 964, 965, 1000, 1090 and 35.

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 7^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

903 to 1091.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: 2026.05.11 15:50:45 +0530

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

Nikita Gadgil 2/2