Kogta Financial (India) Ltd. vs Sahil Tourism — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

Kogta Financial (India) Ltd. vs Sahil Tourism — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respective arbitral awards set aside; Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications and connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons dismissed/disposed; parties at liberty to initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law; limitation period from invocation of arbitration till the date of order excluded; liberty to apply where an express written waiver under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 exists.

Issue for consideration

Whether the arbitral awards in these matters, passed on a unilateral appointment of the sole arbitrator, can stand, and what consequence follows for the Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications founded on them. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, and since the appointment of the sole arbitrator was found to be unilateral in all these matters, 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 would be open to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.ratio¶24
As far as limitation is concerned, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till the date of this order is excluded in initiating fresh arbitration proceedings.ratio¶25
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

Arbitration — unilateral appointment of sole arbitrator — batch disposal of Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications (Serial Nos. 901–910, 912–1022, 1024–1144, 1008–1022, 1024–1144, 1151–1158), Bombay High Court, Abhay Ahuja, J., 28 April 2026. Listing the matters in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's 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, even in execution, and since the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master found the sole arbitrator's appointment unilateral in all these matters, the Court set aside the respective arbitral awards and the execution applications, connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons stood dismissed/disposed. Parties were left free to initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law, with the period from invocation of arbitration till the date of the order excluded for limitation; liberty was reserved to apply where an express agreement in writing under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 waives the 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 1144, 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

Digitally signed by NIKITA NIKITAYOGESH YOGESH GADGIL GADGIL Date:2026.04.28 19:19:34 +0530

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

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