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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the applicants: the Commercial Execution Applications, connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons (if any) stand dismissed/disposed and the respective arbitral awards stand set aside; parties may initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law, excluding for limitation the period from invocation of the arbitration till the date of this order; liberty to apply 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).

Issue for consideration

Whether the Commercial Execution Applications seeking enforcement of arbitral awards can proceed where the appointment of the sole arbitrator was unilateral, in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India.

Court's answer

Since in all these matters the appointment of the sole arbitrator was found by the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master to be unilateral, the said applications stand dismissed in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the respective arbitral awards stand set aside.

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 (the date of this order) is to be excluded in initiating fresh arbitration proceedings.ratio¶¶15
Liberty to apply 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.ratio¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction (Abhay Ahuja, J.; 7 April 2026) — batch disposal of Commercial Execution Applications, Serial Nos. 901–1063 and 1065–1150. Acting in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, 2026 SCC Online SC 7 (unilateral appointment of arbitrator is void ab initio; ineligibility can be raised at any stage, even in execution), and on the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master finding the sole arbitrator's appointment unilateral in every matter, the Court dismissed the execution applications, connected interim applications and chamber summons, and set aside the respective arbitral awards. Parties were left open to initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law; the period from invocation of the arbitration till the date of the order was directed to be excluded for limitation; 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).

901 to 1063 and 1065-1150.doc

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

SERIAL NOS. 901 TO 1063 AND 1065 TO 1150

Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b O. M. Gujar Law Chambers for the Applicant in Sr. No. 965,980,1098 and 1099 and in Sr. No. 983 i/b GNP Legal. None present in other matters.

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 7^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 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.

1 2026 SCC Online SC 7

Nikita Gadgil 1/2

901 to 1063 and 1065-1150.doc

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 NIKITAYOGESH YOGESH GADGIL GADGIL Date:2026.04.08 13:31:04 +0530

Nikita Gadgil 2/2