Dismissed¶9

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mahendra Bajirao Jadhav

Bombay HC15 Apr 2026EXA/3345/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unilateral appointment of sole arbitrator void ab initio; ineligibility raisable at any stage including execution; batch dismissal of Commercial Execution Applications (Serial Nos. 901, 903, 904, 916-1148), Bombay HC OOCJ; arbitral awards set aside; Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, 2026 SCC Online SC 7 applied; Section 12(5) proviso waiver liberty; limitation exclusion from invocation of arbitration; fresh arbitration permitted; Abhay Ahuja, J.; 15 April 2026.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the applicants; arbitral awards set aside. Parties permitted to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, with the period from invocation of arbitration till the date of this order excluded for limitation, and liberty to apply where an express written waiver exists under the proviso to Section 12(5).

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Mahendra Bajirao Jadhav — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the Commercial Execution Applications and connected Interim Applications/Chamber Summons, founded on arbitral awards made after unilateral appointment of the sole arbitrator, can stand, in view of the Supreme Court's observation that such appointment is void ab initio and ineligibility can be raised even in execution. +2 more

¶9

Court's answer

All these applications, in which the appointment of the sole arbitrator was found to be unilateral, stand dismissed in view of the Supreme Court's decision; the respective arbitral awards stand set aside, and the Commercial Execution Applications, the connected Interim Applications and any Chamber Summons stand dismissed/disposed.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

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

¶14

Key takeaways

For limitation in initiating fresh arbitration proceedings, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till today (15 April 2026) is to be excluded.ratio¶15
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).ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Abhay Ahuja, J., 15 April 2026 — batch order dismissing Commercial Execution Applications bearing Serial Nos. 901, 903, 904 and 916 to 1148. The matters were listed in view of the 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 an arbitrator is void ab initio and that ineligibility can be raised at any stage, even in execution. The office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master having found the appointment of the sole arbitrator unilateral in all these matters, the applications stand dismissed and the respective arbitral awards stand set aside; the connected Interim Applications and any Chamber Summons stand dismissed/disposed. Parties may initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law; the period from invocation of arbitration till 15.04.2026 is excluded for limitation; liberty to apply is granted where an express agreement in writing waives the sole arbitrator's ineligibility or the right to object under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶1

901, 903, 904, 916 to 1148.doc

¶2

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

¶3

SERIAL NOS. 901, 903, 904 AND 916 TO 1148

¶4

Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b O. M. Gujar Law Chambers for the Applicant in Sr. No. 1050,1076,1077,1078,1079,1080,1081,1117 and 1123. None present in other matters.

¶5

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 15^th April 2026

¶6

PC:-

¶7

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

¶8

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.

¶9

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

¶10

1 2026 SCC Online SC 7

¶11

Nikita Gadgil 1/2

¶12

901, 903, 904, 916 to 1148.doc

¶13

as the Chamber Summons, if any, stand accordingly dismissed / disposed.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶18

Digitally
signed by
NIKITA
NIKITA YOGESH
YOGESH GADGIL
GADGIL Date:
2026.04.15
20:31:37
+0530

¶19

Nikita Gadgil 2/2

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mahendra Bajirao Jadhav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mahendra Bajirao Jadhav

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 Piyush Krishnanand Mehta

Bajaj Finance Limited vs Satyanarayan Tidke

Indusind Bank Ltd. vs Sterling Car

Mrs. Nivrutti Gopal Gaikwad and Anr. vs the Executive Engineer and Anr.

Shriram Finance Co.Ltd.(Previously Known as Shriram Transport Finance Limited) vs Ajmeersingh D Butter

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Gurpejsingh Gill