Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Asif Mohamadsamad Khan — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Asif Mohamadsamad Khan — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Arbitral awards set aside and the Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications, connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons dismissed / disposed; parties permitted to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law, with the period from invocation of arbitration till the date of the order excluded for limitation purposes, and liberty to apply where an express written waiver under proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 exists.

Issue for consideration

Whether the arbitral awards sought to be executed in these Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications should be set aside because the appointment of the sole arbitrator was unilateral, in light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Airports Authority of India. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Airports Authority of India, and since the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master found the appointment of the sole arbitrator to have been 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, stand accordingly dismissed / disposed.

Key takeaways

It would be open to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.ratio¶18
As far as limitation is concerned, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till the date of this order is to be excluded in initiating fresh arbitration proceedings.ratio¶19
Liberty to apply is reserved for the event that 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

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Abhay Ahuja J., 23 April 2026 - batch order covering Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications, Serial Nos. 901 to 903 and 905 to 1150. All matters were listed 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), observing that unilateral appointment of arbitrator is void ab initio and the ineligibility can be raised at any stage, even in execution. As the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master found the appointment of the sole arbitrator to have been unilateral in all these matters, the respective arbitral awards stand set aside and the Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications, connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons, if any, stand dismissed / disposed. Parties are free to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law; the period from invocation of arbitration till the date of the order is excluded for limitation purposes; and liberty to apply is reserved where 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). Counsel present: Ms. Bijal Gogri (i/b GNP Legal for Sr. No. 1068; i/b O.M. Gujar Law Chambers for Sr. Nos. 1006, 1007, 1024, 1025) and Mr. Suraj Gupta (i/b SG Legal & Associates for the serial numbers listed at para 5); none present in the other matters.

901 to 903 and 905 to 1150.doc

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

SERIAL NOS. 901 TO 903 AND 905 to 1150

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

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.

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

1 2026 SCC Online SC 7

NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL

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

Nikita Gadgil 1/2

901 to 903 and 905 to 1150.doc

and the connected Interim Applications as well as the Chamber Summons, if any, stand accordingly 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.)

Nikita Gadgil 2/2