Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Yatin Vaijnath Mane — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Yatin Vaijnath Mane — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

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

Issue for consideration

Whether, given the unilateral appointment of the sole arbitrator in each of these matters (as found by the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master), and in light of the Supreme Court's observation that unilateral appointment of arbitrator is void ab initio and ineligibility can be raised at any stage, even in execution, the applications should be dismissed and the arbitral awards set aside, and with what consequences for fresh arbitration and limitation.

Court's answer

Since the appointment of the sole arbitrator in all these matters was found to have been unilateral, the said applications stand dismissed and the respective arbitral awards stand set aside, along with the connected Commercial Execution Applications, Interim Applications and Chamber Summons, which stand dismissed/disposed.

Ratio / Principle

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

Key takeaways

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¶18
Liberty to apply is reserved 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).obiter¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Abhay Ahuja, J. - Batch disposal of matters at Serial Nos. 901 to 1033, 1035 to 1055 and 1057 to 1148. Acting on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. Airports Authority of India (2026 SCC Online SC 7), wherein the Supreme Court observed that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is void ab initio and that the ineligibility can be raised at any stage and even in execution, and on the finding of the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master that in all these matters the sole arbitrators had been unilaterally appointed, the Court dismissed the said applications and set aside the respective arbitral awards; the connected Commercial Execution Applications, Interim Applications and Chamber Summons likewise stood dismissed/disposed. Parties were left free to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law, with the period from the invocation of arbitration till the date of the order expressly excluded for limitation purposes, and liberty reserved to apply where an express agreement in writing exists 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).

901 to 1033, 1035 to 1055 and 1057 to 1148.doc

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

SERIAL NOS. 901 TO 1033, 1035 TO 1055 AND 1057 TO 1148

M/s Bijal Gogri i/b GNP Legal for the Applicant in Sr no. 975. Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b O. M. Gujar Law Chambers for the Applicant in Sr. No. 923, 924, 925, 936, 969, 976, 977, 978, 999, 1033, 1035, 1054, 1078, 1079, 1080, 1081, 1090 to 1106 and 1144 to 1148.

Mr. Pawan Kilnake i/b SG Legal & Associates for the Applicant in Sr. No. 940, 947, 948, 961, 962, 965, 971, 988, 989, 990, 992, 1076, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1110, 1111, 1120 and 1121.

Mr. Sangram Suryavanshi with Mr. Shubham Pasvant for the Applicant in Sr. No. 973 and 974.

Ms. Merlin Sam i/b P. D. Jain & Co. for the Applicant in Sr. No. 1075. None present in other matters.

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.

Digitally signed by NIKITA NIKITA YOGESH YOGESH GADGIL GADGIL Date: 2026.04.08 20:08:39 +0530

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 1033, 1035 to 1055 and 1057 to 1148.doc

sole arbitrator has been unilateral, the said applications, in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, stand dismissed. The respective arbitral awards stand set aside and the Commercial Execution Applications 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