Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Phayayad Khan — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Phayayad Khan — 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 (if any) dismissed / disposed; parties at liberty 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 waiver of Section 12(5) ineligibility exists.

Issue for consideration

Whether the arbitral awards in these execution matters, having been made under a unilaterally appointed sole arbitrator, should be set aside and the Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications (with connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons) dismissed / disposed, in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International. +2 more

Court's answer

Since in all these matters the appointment of the sole arbitrator has been found unilateral (by the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master), 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, stand accordingly dismissed / disposed.

Ratio / Principle

It would be open to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

As far as limitation is concerned, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till today is to be excluded in initiating fresh arbitration proceedings.ratio¶18
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) of the said Act.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Abhay Ahuja, J., 22 April 2026 (batch order, Serial Nos. 901 to 975 and 977 to 1155): Acting on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. Airports Authority of India, 2026 SCC Online SC 7 (unilateral appointment of arbitrator void ab initio; ineligibility raisable at any stage, even in execution), and on the finding of the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master that in each matter the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral, the Court set aside the respective arbitral awards and dismissed / disposed of the Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications together with connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons, if any. Parties were left free to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law; for limitation, the period from invocation of arbitration till the date of the order was directed to be excluded; and liberty to apply was granted where an express agreement in writing exists under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 waiving the sole arbitrator's ineligibility or the right to object under Section 12(5).

901 to 975 and 977 to 1155.doc

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

SERIAL NOS. 901 TO 975 AND 977 TO 1155

Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b GNP Legal for the Applicant in Sr. No. 926, 948 and 949.

Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b O.M. Gujar Law Chambers for the Applicant in Sr. No.927,930,975 and 980.

Mr. Suraj Gupta i/b SG Legal & Associates for the Applicant in Sr. No. 928,929,951,1014 to 1018,1022 to 1024,1027,1028,1039 and 1060. Ms. Reena Lange i/b PMH Law for the Applicant in Sr.no. 930. None present in other matters.

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 22^nd 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 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,

1 2026 SCC Online SC 7

Nikita Gadgil 1/2

Digitally signed by NIKITA NIKITAYOGESH YOGESH GADGIL GADGIL Date:2026.04.22 19:39:20 +0530

901 to 975 and 977 to 1155.doc

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