Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Pratiksh Sanjay Bugde — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Pratiksh Sanjay Bugde — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Arbitral awards set aside; Commercial Execution / Execution Applications and connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons (if any) dismissed / disposed; parties at liberty to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law; period from invocation of arbitration till the date of the order excluded for limitation; liberty to apply where an express written agreement 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).

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, the arbitral awards in these matters, passed pursuant to unilateral appointment of the sole arbitrator, are liable to be set aside. +1 more

Court's answer

Since in all these matters the appointment of the sole arbitrator 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 (unilateral appointment void ab initio; ineligibility raisable at any stage, even in execution), the respective arbitral awards stand set aside.

Ratio / Principle

In initiating fresh arbitration proceedings, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till today (the date of this order) is to be excluded for limitation.

Key takeaways

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).ratio¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Unilateral appointment of sole arbitrator — Following the Supreme Court decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. 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 on the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master finding the appointment of the sole arbitrator in each matter unilateral, the Bombay High Court (Abhay Ahuja, J.) set aside the respective arbitral awards in Serial Nos. 901 to 1149 and dismissed / disposed the Commercial Execution / Execution Applications with connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons — Parties at liberty to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law — Period from invocation of arbitration till the date of the order excluded for limitation — Liberty to apply where an express agreement in writing in terms of the proviso to Section 12(5) 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