Tata Capital Limited Formerly Known as Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. vs Krystal Transport Service Prop Varsha Borade and Anr. (Borrower) — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Tata Capital Limited Formerly Known as Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. vs Krystal Transport Service Prop Varsha Borade and Anr. (Borrower) — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respective arbitral awards set aside; Execution Applications and connected Interim Applications dismissed/disposed; parties at liberty to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law; period from invocation of arbitration till the date of the order excluded for limitation.

Issue for consideration

Whether the arbitral awards in these execution proceedings, having arisen from a unilateral appointment of the arbitrator, should be set aside at the execution stage. +1 more

Court's answer

Acting on the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India regarding unilateral appointment of arbitrators, the Court set aside the respective arbitral awards and dismissed/disposed of the Execution Application and the connected Interim Application.

Ratio / Principle

It would be 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 the order is excluded in initiating fresh arbitration proceedings.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration — Unilateral appointment of arbitrator — Challenge at execution stage: The Bombay High Court (Abhay Ahuja, J.), in six execution matters of Tata Capital Limited v. Krystal Transport Service (Prop. Varsha Borade) and another, noting the Applicant's submission founded 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), set aside the respective arbitral awards and dismissed/disposed of the Execution Application and connected Interim Applications; parties left free to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law, with the period from invocation of arbitration till the date of the order excluded for limitation.

43, 57, 58, 59, 60 & 62.doc

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

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3255 OF 2024 IN

EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 404 OF 2025

Tata Capital Limited … Applicant Versus Krystal Transport Service Prop. Varsha Borade And Anr. … Respondents

AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4633 OF 2025 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 2554 OF 2025 AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4976 OF 2025 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 2607 OF 2025 AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5298 OF 2025 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 2553 OF 2025 AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5301 OF 2025 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 2573 OF 2025 AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5327 OF 2025 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 2552 OF 2025

Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b. OM Gujar Law Chambers, Advocate for the Applicant. None for the Respondent.

Mandar M. 1/3

43, 57, 58, 59, 60 & 62.doc

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 28^th APRIL, 2026

P.C. :

When the matters are called out, Ms. Gogri, learned Counsel, appearing for the Applicant 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.

In view of the aforesaid, the respective awards are therefore set aside and the Execution Application as well as the connected Interim Application 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.

1 2026 SCC Online SC 7

Mandar M. 2/3

43, 57, 58, 59, 60 & 62.doc

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

Mandar M. 3/3