Integro Finserv Private Limited vs Nandighosh Infrastructure and… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

Integro Finserv Private Limited vs Nandighosh Infrastructure and… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief in aid of execution of the award; the parties are permitted to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, with the period from invocation till today excluded for limitation, and liberty to apply reserved should an express written waiver under Section 12(5) exist.

Issue for consideration

Whether the arbitral award dated 18 July 2023 should be set aside on the ground that the appointment of the sole arbitrator was unilateral, the ineligibility being raised at the execution stage.

Court's answer

Acting on the Supreme Court's observation in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is void ab initio and that ineligibility can be raised at any stage, including in execution, this Court set aside the arbitral award dated 18 July 2023.

Ratio / Principle

The Execution Application and the connected Interim Application stand dismissed/disposed.

Key takeaways

It is open to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.ratio¶16
In initiating fresh arbitration proceedings, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till today is to be excluded for purposes of limitation.ratio¶17
Liberty to apply is reserved for the event that an express agreement in writing exists, 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

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Abhay Ahuja, J. — Interim Application No. 2846 of 2025 in Execution Application No. 2568 of 2015 (Integro Finserv Private Limited v. Nandighosh Infrastructure And Logistics), decided 29 April 2026. On the learned Associate's finding that the appointment of the sole arbitrator was unilateral, 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 of arbitrator void ab initio; ineligibility can be raised at any stage, even in execution), the Court set aside the arbitral award dated 18 July 2023 and dismissed/disposed of the Execution Application and the connected Interim Application. 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 to apply was reserved in the event an express agreement in writing exists in terms of 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).

43-IA-2846-2025.doc

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

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2846 OF 2025 IN

EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 2568 OF 2015

Integro Finserv Private Limited )… Applicant V/S. Nandighosh Infrastructure And Logistics )… Respondent

None present.

CORAM	: ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE	: 29^thApril 2026

P.C. :

In this matter, it has been found by the learned Associate of this Court that the appointment of the sole arbitrator has been unilateral.

Accordingly, 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, the arbitral award dated 18^th July, 2023 stands set aside. The Execution

1 2026 SCC Online SC 7

Mandar M. 1/2

43-IA-2846-2025.doc

Application is not on board. It is taken on board and the Execution Application and the connected Interim Application 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.)

Mandar M. 2/2