Axis Bank Ltd. vs Rajiv J. Maiya — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

Axis Bank Ltd. vs Rajiv J. Maiya — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Arbitral awards set aside; parties at liberty to initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law; limitation period from invocation of arbitration till today excluded; liberty to apply where an express written agreement 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.

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is void ab initio and the ineligibility can be raised at any stage, even in execution, arbitral awards founded on a unilaterally appointed sole arbitrator can stand and the pending Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications be sustained.

Court's answer

In view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India — that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is void ab initio and the ineligibility can be raised at any stage, even in execution — and the finding that the appointment of the sole arbitrator was unilateral in all these matters, 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, accordingly stand dismissed / disposed.

Key takeaways

It would be open to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.ratio¶20
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¶21
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).ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ARBITRATION — UNILATERAL APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR — EXECUTION — BATCH DISPOSAL (High Court of Bombay, Abhay Ahuja, J., 7th May 2026; Serial Nos. 903–1091): Following the Hon'ble 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 the ineligibility can be raised at any stage, even in execution, and upon the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master finding the appointment of the sole arbitrator unilateral in all the matters, the Court set aside the respective arbitral awards and dismissed / disposed of the Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications together with the connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons, if any. Parties were left free to initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law; the period from invocation of the arbitration till the date of the order was directed to be excluded for limitation; and liberty was granted to apply where an express agreement in writing in terms of the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 waives the sole arbitrator's ineligibility or the right to object thereunder.

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