Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs Arvind Kumar — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs Arvind Kumar — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Arbitral awards set aside; Execution Applications and connected Interim Applications dismissed/disposed; parties permitted to initiate fresh arbitration with the period from invocation of arbitration till the order date excluded for limitation; liberty to apply where an express written waiver under the proviso to Section 12(5) exists.

Issue for consideration

Whether arbitral awards passed pursuant to a unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator can stand/be enforced in execution, given the position that unilateral appointment is void ab initio and ineligibility can be raised at any stage, even in execution.

Court's answer

In view of the unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator in these matters (and the Supreme Court's ruling relied upon), the arbitral awards are set aside and the Execution Applications as well as the connected Interim Applications stand dismissed/disposed.

Ratio / Principle

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

Key takeaways

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¶31
Liberty is granted 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).obiter¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Abhay Ahuja, J.), 20th April 2026 — In a batch of twelve Interim Applications in Execution Applications filed by Aditya Birla Finance Limited (Applicant) against Babu G (Respondent), the Court, acting on the reliance placed on Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 7 (unilateral appointment of arbitrator void ab initio; ineligibility raisable at any stage, even in execution), set aside the arbitral awards and the Execution Applications together with the connected Interim Applications stood dismissed/disposed. The parties were left free to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law; the period from the invocation of the arbitration till the date of the order was directed to be excluded for limitation; and liberty was reserved to apply in the event of an express agreement in writing 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).

46 to 57.doc

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

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2325 OF 2025 IN

EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 2386 OF 2025

Aditya Birla Finance Limited … Applicant Versus Babu G … Respondents

AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2327 OF 2025 IN

EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 2389 OF 2025 AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2328 OF 2025 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 2263 OF 2025 AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2330 OF 2025

IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 2272 OF 2025 AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2332 OF 2025

IN

EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 2400 OF 2025 AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2333 OF 2025

IN

EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 2399 OF 2025 AND

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2344 OF 2025

IN

EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 2171 OF 2025 AND

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2345 OF 2025 IN

Digitally
signed by
NIKITA
NIKITA YOGESH
YOGESH GADGIL
GADGIL Date:
2026.04.21
20:43:20
+0530

EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 2422 OF 2025 AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2346 OF 2025 IN

Mandar M. 1/3

46 to 57.doc

EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 2280 OF 2025 AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2347 OF 2025 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 2420 OF 2025 AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2348 OF 2025 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 2267 OF 2025 AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2349 OF 2025 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 2349 OF 2025

Ms. Vedika Pedhambkar i/b. Akhil Modi and Associates, Advocate for Applicant.

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 20^th April 2026

PC:-

Ms. Pedhambkar, learned Counsel appears for the Applicant in these matters and submits that in these matters 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.

1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 7.

Mandar M. 2/3

46 to 57.doc

In view of the aforesaid, the arbitral awards are set aside and the Execution Applications as well as the connected Interim Applications 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.)

Mandar M. 3/3