Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Aditya Gujar — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Aditya Gujar — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications and the connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons stand dismissed/disposed; the respective arbitral awards are set aside; parties may initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law, with the period from invocation of the arbitration till the date of this order excluded for limitation; liberty to apply where an express agreement in writing in terms of the proviso to Section 12(5) waived the sole arbitrator's ineligibility or the right to object under Section 12(5).

Issue for consideration

Whether arbitral awards founded on a unilaterally appointed sole arbitrator can stand, and how the Commercial/ordinary Execution Applications and connected interim applications and chamber summonses premised on such awards are to be disposed of, in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India. +2 more

Court's answer

In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, and upon the finding that in all these matters the appointment of the sole arbitrator was unilateral, 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, accordingly stand dismissed / disposed.

Key takeaways

It is open to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.ratio¶¶24
For initiating fresh arbitration proceedings, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till the date of this order (today) is to be excluded for purposes of limitation.ratio¶¶25
Liberty to apply is given 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.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction (Abhay Ahuja, J.), 28 April 2026: Batch of Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications (Serial Nos. 901 to 910, 912 to 1022, 1024 to 1004, 1008 to 1022, 1024 to 1144 and 1151 to 1158) listed in view of the Supreme Court decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India (2026 SCC Online SC 7), which observes that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is void ab initio and that ineligibility can be raised at any stage and even in execution. The office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master having found the sole-arbitrator appointments in all these matters unilateral, the respective arbitral awards stand set aside, and the execution applications with connected interim applications and chamber summonses stand dismissed/disposed. Parties may initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law; the period from the invocation of the arbitration till the date of this order is excluded for limitation. Liberty to apply where an express agreement in writing in terms of the proviso to Section 12(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, waived the sole arbitrator's ineligibility or the right to object under Section 12(5).

901 TO 910, 912 , 1024 TO 1004, 1008 TO 1022, 1024 TO 1144 AND 1151 TO 1158.doc

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

SERIAL NOS. 901 TO 910, 912 TO 1022, 1024 TO 1004, 1008 TO 1022, 1024 TO 1144 AND 1151 TO 1158

Mr. Pratik Barot with Ms. Angel Pandy i/b Kruti Bhavsar for the Respondent in Sr.No. 917.

Ms. Rahila Memon with Ms. Reet Jain i/b S. I. Joshi & Co. for the Applicant in Sr. No. 918.

Mr. Padmakar S. Garad i/b SG Legal & Associates for the Applicant in Sr. Nos. 951, 958, 991, 992, 994, 1054, 1055, 1112, 1114 to 1118 and 1152 to 1154.

Ms. Vedika Pedhambkar i/b Akhil Modi & Associates for the Applicant in Sr. Nos. 1157 and 1158.

Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b O. M. Gujar Law Chambers for the Applicant in Sr. No. 911, 916, 917,944,945,978,1022,1023,1024,1029,1030 & 1060. Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b GNP Legal for the Applicant in Sr. No. 1028.

Mr. Vaibhav V. Ugle with Mr. Shubham Pasvant for the Applicant in Sr. No. 1041 to 1044.

Ms. Asha Bose i/b Ms. Swatantri Waghmare for the Applicant in Sr. No. 1110.

None present in other matters.

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 28^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

Digitally signed by NIKITA NIKITA YOGESH YOGESH GADGIL GADGIL Date: 2026.04.28 19:03:52 +0530

Supreme Court has observed that unilateral appointment of arbitrator

1 2026 SCC Online SC 7

Nikita Gadgil 1/2

901 TO 910, 912 , 1024 TO 1004, 1008 TO 1022, 1024 TO 1144 AND 1151 TO 1158.doc

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