Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltld., vs Shamshad Intaz Ahmad — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltld., vs Shamshad Intaz Ahmad — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Arbitral awards set aside on account of unilateral appointment of the sole arbitrator; Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications and connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons dismissed / disposed; parties permitted to initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law; limitation protected by excluding the period from invocation of arbitration till today; liberty to apply where an express written agreement under the proviso to Section 12(5) waives the arbitrator's ineligibility or the right to object under Section 12(5).

Issue for consideration

Whether, given that the appointment of the sole arbitrator in all these matters was found to be unilateral and in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Airports Authority of India (unilateral appointment void ab initio; ineligibility raisable even in execution), the respective arbitral awards should be set aside and the Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications dismissed. +2 more

Court's answer

Since in all these matters the appointment of the sole arbitrator was found to be unilateral, and in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. 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 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¶17
For limitation purposes, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till today is to be excluded in initiating fresh arbitration proceedings.ratio¶18
Liberty to apply is granted 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) of the said Act.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction (Abhay Ahuja, J., 29 April 2026) - batch disposal of Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications (Serial Nos. 901 to 1086 and 1090, 1094 and 1097 to 1156). Acting on the finding of the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master that in all these matters the appointment of the sole arbitrator was unilateral, and in view of the Hon'ble 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 can be raised at any stage and even in execution, the Court set aside the respective arbitral awards and dismissed / disposed the execution applications together with connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons. Parties were left free to initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law; for limitation, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till today is excluded; 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 ineligibility of the sole arbitrator or the right to object under Section 12(5).

901 to 1086, 1094 & 1097 TO 1156.doc

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

SERIAL NOS. 901 TO 1086 AND 1090, 1094 AND 1097 TO 1156

Mr. Suraj C. Gupta i/b SG Legal & Associates for the Applicant in Sr. Nos. 992.

Ms. Reet Jain i/b S. I. Joshi & Co. for the Applicant in Sr. No.1016, 1058 to 1062, 1068 and 1070.

Mr. Narayan R. Awate with Ms. Seema Phadatare for the Applicant in Sr. No. 981,1026,1087 to 1089, 1100 and 1101.

Ms. Keertana Nair i/b GNP Legal for the Applicant in Sr. No. 1004, 1005, 1006, ,1011, 1014, , 1063, 1064, 1066, 1067, 1072, 1077, 1078 and 1102.

None present in other matters.

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 29^th April 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

1 2026 SCC Online SC 7

Nikita Gadgil 1/2

901 to 1086, 1094 & 1097 TO 1156.doc

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.

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

Digitally
signed by
NIKITA
NIKITA YOGESH
YOGESH GADGIL
GADGIL Date:
2026.04.30
14:30:09
+0530

Nikita Gadgil 2/2