Dismissed¶16

Aditya Birla Finance Limited v. Urmila Devi

Bombay HC8 Jan 2026IA/2329/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Matrubhoomi Dairy Pvt. Ltd.; Bombay High Court; Abhay Ahuja J.; unilateral appointment of arbitrator void ab initio; awards set aside; execution applications dismissed/disposed; Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, 2026 SCC Online SC 7; Section 12(5) proviso waiver of ineligibility; exclusion of limitation period from invocation; fresh arbitration proceedings; ineligibility raisable even in execution.

What did the court decide?

Respective arbitration awards set aside; parties free to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the period from invocation till date excluded for limitation; liberty to apply if an express written waiver under the proviso to Section 12(5) exists. ¶16

Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs Urmila Devi — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the arbitration awards, which flowed from a unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator, should be set aside and the Execution Applications and connected Interim Applications dismissed/disposed. +2 more

¶16

Court's answer

In view of the unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator, the respective awards were set aside and the Execution Applications and the connected Interim Applications stand dismissed/disposed.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

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

¶17

Key takeaways

The period from the invocation of the arbitration till today was ordered to be excluded in initiating fresh arbitration proceedings.ratio¶18
Liberty was granted to apply in the event there exists an express agreement in writing in terms of the proviso to Section 12(5) of the said Act 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., 15 April 2026 — Interim Application No. 498 of 2026 in Execution Application (L) No. 24468 of 2023 (Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Matrubhoomi Dairy Pvt. Ltd.), with connected Interim/Execution Applications. Following counsel's confirmation of a unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator, and relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, 2026 SCC Online SC 7 (unilateral appointment void ab initio; ineligibility raisable at any stage, even in execution), the Court set aside the respective awards and dismissed/disposed of the Execution Applications and connected Interim Applications. Parties were left free to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law; the period from invocation of arbitration till the date of the order was ordered excluded for limitation; and liberty to apply was reserved where an express agreement in writing under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the said Act waives the sole arbitrator's ineligibility or the right to object.

¶1

9, 33, 34, 46 & 47.doc

¶2

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

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 498 OF 2026 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION (L) NO. 24468 OF 2023

¶4

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ...Applicant V/s.

¶5

Matrubhoomi Dairy Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

¶6

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2556 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 24813 OF 2023 AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2326 OF 2025 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 1185 OF 2025 AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2329 OF 2025 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 504 OF 2025 AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5315 OF 2025

¶7

IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 1620 OF 2025 AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5359 OF 2025 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 1623 OF 2025

¶8

Ms. Jenny Somaiya with Ms. Simran K. Raj i/b Tikshta Modi for the Applicant.

¶9

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 15^th APRIL, 2026

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

When these matters are called out, Ms. Somaiya, learned

¶12

Counsel, appearing for the Applicant confirms that in these matters

¶13

Nikita Gadgil 1/2

¶14

9, 33, 34, 46 & 47.doc

¶15

there has been a unilateral appointment of Arbitrator and this Court may pass appropriate orders in view of the decision in the case of Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Airports Authority of India¹ , where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that unilateral appointment of arbitrator is void ab initio and the ineligibility can be raised at any stage and even in execution.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid, the respective awards are therefore set aside and the Execution Applications as well as the connected Interim Applications stand dismissed/disposed.

¶17

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

¶18

As far as limitation is concerned, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till today be excluded in initiating fresh arbitration proceedings.

¶19

Liberty to apply in the event there exists an express agreement in writing in terms of proviso to Section 12(5) of the said Act waiving the ineligibility of the sole arbitrator or the right to object under Section 12(5) of the said Act.

¶20

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶21

Nikita Gadgil 2/2

¶22

1 2026 SCC Online SC 7

¶23

Digitally signed by NIKITA NIKITA YOGESH YOGESH GADGIL GADGIL Date: 2026.04.17 12:00:02 +0530

Aditya Birla Finance Limited v. Urmila Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Birla Finance Limited v. Urmila Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/s Lotus Developers vs Evertop Apartments Cooperative Housing Society Limited

Mangla Amit Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs Vinay Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.

Tata Capital Limited(Formerly Known as Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd) vs Naidu Earthmovers-Prop-Shriniwas Naidu and Anr.

Aparna Mangesh Pinge vs Chandrasekhar Deepak Diwadkar

Shubh Enterprises vs Samudra Darshan Co. Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs Jeyalakshmi Selvaraj