Shriram Finance Ltd. vs Chand Mohd Lalchand Shaikh — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

Shriram Finance Ltd. vs Chand Mohd Lalchand Shaikh — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Arbitral awards set aside; Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications dismissed and connected interim applications and chamber summonses disposed; parties permitted to initiate fresh arbitration with the period from invocation till the date of the order excluded for limitation; liberty to apply where an express written agreement waives the sole arbitrator's ineligibility or the right to object under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issue for consideration

Whether arbitral awards passed pursuant to unilateral appointment of the sole arbitrator must be set aside, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is void ab initio and ineligibility can be raised at any stage, even in execution. +2 more

Court's answer

Since the appointment of the sole arbitrator in all these matters was found to be unilateral, and in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, the respective arbitral awards stand set aside.

Ratio / Principle

Consequent to the setting aside of the arbitral awards, the Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications and the connected interim applications and chamber summonses stand dismissed / disposed.

Key takeaways

It is open to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.ratio¶17
For limitation purposes in initiating fresh arbitration proceedings, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till the date of this order is to be excluded.ratio¶18
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).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Batch disposal (Serial Nos. 901 to 1086, 1090, 1094 and 1097 to 1156) of Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications before the Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Abhay Ahuja, J., 29 April 2026: relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Airports Authority of India, 2026 SCC Online SC 7, that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is void ab initio and ineligibility can be raised at any stage, even in execution, and upon the finding by the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master that the appointment of the sole arbitrators in these matters was unilateral, the Court set aside the respective arbitral awards and dismissed / disposed the execution applications, connected interim applications and chamber summonses; parties were left free to initiate fresh arbitration, with the period from invocation of arbitration till the date of the order excluded for limitation, and liberty to apply where an express agreement in writing waives the sole arbitrator's ineligibility or the right to object under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

901 to 1086, 1094 & 1097 TO 1156.doc

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

SERIAL NOS. 901 TO 1086 AND 1090, 1094 AND 1097 TO 1156

Mr. Suraj C. Gupta i/b SG Legal & Associates for the Applicant in Sr. Nos. 992.

Ms. Reet Jain i/b S. I. Joshi & Co. for the Applicant in Sr. No.1016, 1058 to 1062, 1068 and 1070.

Mr. Narayan R. Awate with Ms. Seema Phadatare for the Applicant in Sr. No. 981,1026,1087 to 1089, 1100 and 1101.

Ms. Keertana Nair i/b GNP Legal for the Applicant in Sr. No. 1004, 1005, 1006, ,1011, 1014, , 1063, 1064, 1066, 1067, 1072, 1077, 1078 and 1102.

None present in other matters.

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 29^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

1 2026 SCC Online SC 7

Nikita Gadgil 1/2

901 to 1086, 1094 & 1097 TO 1156.doc

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.)

Digitally
signed by
NIKITA
NIKITA YOGESH
YOGESH GADGIL
GADGIL Date:
2026.04.30
14:30:09
+0530

Nikita Gadgil 2/2