Hdfc Bank Limited vs Rajesh Kumar — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

Hdfc Bank Limited vs Rajesh Kumar — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Parties at liberty to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law; the period from invocation of arbitration till the date of this order excluded for limitation; liberty to apply where an express agreement in writing under the proviso to Section 12(5) waives the sole arbitrator's ineligibility or the right to object under Section 12(5).

Issue for consideration

Whether the respective arbitral awards stand set aside in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. Airports Authority of India, the appointment of the sole arbitrator having been found unilateral. +3 more

Court's answer

In all these matters, the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master having found the appointment of the sole arbitrator unilateral, and in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. Airports Authority of India, the respective arbitral awards stand set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The Commercial Execution / 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¶¶17
For limitation purposes, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till the date of this order is to be excluded in initiating fresh arbitration proceedings.ratio¶¶18
Liberty reserved 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).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Abhay Ahuja, J.), 20 April 2026 — batch disposal, Serial Nos. 901 to 1149: Acting on the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. Airports Authority of India (2026 SCC Online SC 7), that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is void ab initio and the ineligibility can be raised at any stage and even in execution, and upon the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master finding in all these matters that the appointment of the sole arbitrator had been unilateral, the Court set aside the respective arbitral awards and dismissed / disposed of the Commercial Execution / Execution Applications with their connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons. Parties were declared open to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings; the period from invocation of arbitration till the date of the order was directed to be excluded for limitation; and liberty was reserved to apply 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 1149.doc

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

SERIAL NOS. 901 TO 1149

Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b O, M. Gujar Law Chambers for the Applicant in Serial No. 905, 924, 926, 963 and 1078.

Mr. Suraj Gupta i/b SG Legal and Associates for the Applicant in Serial No. 908,909,910,926,983,1041,1100 and 1102.

Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b GNP Legal for the Applicant in Serial No. 921 to 923.

Mr. Sangram B. Suryavanshi for the Applicant in Serial No. 1120.

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 20^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.

Digitally signed by NIKITA NIKITA YOGESH YOGESH GADGIL GADGIL Date: 2026.04.20 15:47:01 +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 sole arbitrator has been unilateral, in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respective arbitral awards stand set aside 1 2026 SCC Online SC 7

Nikita Gadgil 1/2

901 to 1149.doc

and the Commercial Execution / 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