Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., (Newly Name Shriram Finance… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., (Newly Name Shriram Finance… — 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 / disposed; parties free to initiate fresh arbitration with the period from invocation till the date of the order excluded for limitation; liberty to apply where an express written waiver under the proviso to Section 12(5) exists.

Issue for consideration

Whether, given the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is void ab initio and ineligibility can be raised even in execution, the arbitral awards founded on unilaterally appointed sole arbitrators must be set aside and the enforcement proceedings dismissed. +2 more

Court's answer

On the Prothonotary & Senior Master's finding that the sole arbitrator had been unilaterally appointed in all these matters, and acting on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Airports Authority of India, 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 would be open to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.ratio¶20
For initiating fresh arbitration proceedings, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till today (the date of this order) shall be excluded for limitation purposes.ratio¶21
Liberty to apply is preserved 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 (OOCJ), Abhay Ahuja, J. — Batch order covering Board Serial Nos. 903 to 1151 (Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications): the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master found that in all these matters the sole arbitrator had been appointed unilaterally. Acting on the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. Airports Authority of India (2026 SCC Online SC 7), the Court set aside the respective arbitral awards and dismissed / disposed of the Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications, the connected Interim Applications and any Chamber Summons. Parties were left free to initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law; the period from invocation of arbitration till the date of the order is to be excluded for limitation; and liberty to apply was reserved 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 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