Dismissed¶17

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Ashok Kumar Haibatrao Pol

Bombay HC23 Apr 2026EXA/2901/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unilateral appointment of sole arbitrator void ab initio; arbitral awards set aside in execution proceedings; Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India 2026 SCC Online SC 7 relied on; Section 12(5) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 proviso waiver liberty; Commercial Execution Applications dismissed / disposed; fresh arbitration permitted; limitation exclusion from invocation till today; Bombay High Court OOCJ; Abhay Ahuja J.; Prothonotary & Senior Master report.

What did the court decide?

Respective arbitral awards set aside; Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications and connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons dismissed / disposed; liberty to initiate fresh arbitration with the period from invocation till today excluded for limitation ¶17

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Ashok Kumar Haibatrao Pol — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether arbitral awards founded on a unilateral appointment of the sole arbitrator can stand in the pending Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications before this Court

¶11

Court's answer

In view of the Supreme Court decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, where the appointment of the sole arbitrator is found to be unilateral, the respective arbitral awards stand set aside

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The parties are at liberty to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law

¶18

Key takeaways

For limitation purposes, the period from invocation of the arbitration until today is excluded in initiating fresh arbitration proceedingsratio¶19
Liberty to apply in the event an express agreement in writing 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 under Section 12(5)ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Batch order (Sr. Nos. 901–903 and 905–1150, Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications), Abhay Ahuja, J., 23 April 2026: Acting 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 the ineligibility can be raised at any stage and even in execution, and on findings of the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master that the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral in each matter, the respective arbitral awards stand set aside and the execution applications with connected interim applications and chamber summons stand dismissed / disposed. Parties free to initiate fresh arbitration; the period from invocation of arbitration till today excluded for limitation; liberty to apply where an express written agreement under the proviso to Section 12(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 waives the ineligibility.

¶1

901 to 903 and 905 to 1150.doc

¶2

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

¶3

SERIAL NOS. 901 TO 903 AND 905 to 1150

¶4

Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b GNP Legal for the Applicant in Sr. No. 1068. Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b O.M. Gujar Law Chambers for the Applicant in Sr. No.1006, 1007, 1024 and 1025

¶5

Mr. Suraj Gupta i/b SG Legal & Associates for the Applicant in Sr. No. 910, 911, 1009, 1018, 1019, 1089, 1093, 1096, 1098, 1100, 1103, 1105, 1106, 1107, 1109 to 1116, 1022 and 1023. None present in other matters.

¶6

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 23^rd April 2026

¶7

PC:-

¶8

All these matters have been listed in view of the decision of the

¶9

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhadra International (India) Pvt.

¶10

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.

¶11

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,

¶12

1 2026 SCC Online SC 7

¶13

NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL

¶14

Digitally signed by NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL Date: 2026.04.23 16:41:27 +0530

¶15

Nikita Gadgil 1/2

¶16

901 to 903 and 905 to 1150.doc

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

As far as limitation is concerned, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till today be excluded in initiating fresh arbitration proceedings.

¶20

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.

¶21

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶22

Nikita Gadgil 2/2

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Ashok Kumar Haibatrao Pol

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Ashok Kumar Haibatrao Pol

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank Limited vs Ravi Kumar

Tata Motors Finance Solutions Limited Now Known as Tata Motors Finance Limited vs Bhagirathi Trans Corpo Pvt. Ltd.

Shriram Finance Limited vs Yaar Mohd Shaikh and Anrs

Mr. Janardan Prasad Ramashankar Mishra through Power of Attorney vs Mr. Sheshmani Ramashankar Mishra

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. vs Makdoom Lalamahamad Patel

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Asif Mohamadsamad Khan