Tata Captial Financial Services Ltd. vs Rishi Bundela — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

Tata Captial Financial Services Ltd. vs Rishi Bundela — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Arbitral awards set aside; Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications and connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons dismissed or disposed; parties free to initiate fresh arbitration with limitation exclusion from invocation to date of order; liberty to apply on an express written waiver under proviso to Section 12(5).

Issue for consideration

Whether arbitral awards founded on a unilaterally appointed sole arbitrator can stand when ineligibility is raised at the execution stage, in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India. +1 more

Court's answer

As the appointment of the sole arbitrator in each of these matters was found to be unilateral, the respective arbitral awards stand set aside.

Ratio / Principle

It is open to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

For limitation purposes, the period from invocation of the arbitration until the date of this order is to be excluded in initiating fresh arbitration proceedings.ratio¶13
Liberty to apply is granted where an express agreement in writing under the proviso to Section 12(5) waives the sole arbitrator's ineligibility or the right to object under Section 12(5).ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (OOCJ), Abhay Ahuja J., 5 May 2026 — batch of Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications (serial nos. 902–1148 series). Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. 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 acting on the Prothonotary & Senior Master's office finding that the sole arbitrator's appointment in each matter was unilateral, the Court set aside the respective arbitral awards and dismissed/disposed of the execution applications with connected interim applications and chamber summons. Parties may institute fresh arbitration; the period from invocation of arbitration to the date of the order is excluded for limitation; liberty to apply where an express written agreement under the 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).

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