Axis Bank Ltd. vs Mohd Sadiq K Shaikh — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

Axis Bank Ltd. vs Mohd Sadiq K Shaikh — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Parties may initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law; the period from invocation of the arbitration till today is excluded for limitation purposes; liberty to apply where an express written agreement in terms of the proviso to Section 12(5) waives the sole arbitrator's ineligibility or the right to object under Section 12(5).

Issue for consideration

Whether these Commercial Execution Applications can stand where the appointment of the sole arbitrator was unilateral, in view of the Supreme Court's ruling that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is void ab initio and the ineligibility can be raised at any stage, even in execution. +2 more

Court's answer

Since in all these matters the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master found the appointment of the sole arbitrator to have been unilateral, the said applications stand dismissed in view of the Supreme Court's decision that unilateral appointment of arbitrator is void ab initio.

Ratio / Principle

The respective arbitral awards stand set aside.

Key takeaways

It would be open to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.ratio¶20
For limitation purposes, the period from the invocation of the arbitration until today is to be excluded when initiating fresh arbitration proceedings.ratio¶21
Liberty is granted to apply 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 ineligibility of the sole arbitrator or the right to object under Section 12(5).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Batch order (Serial Nos. 902–985, 987–1117, 1120–1121, 1124–1134, 1138–1151, 1154–1169), High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction (Abhay Ahuja, J.): Acting on the Supreme Court's ruling in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Airports Authority of India, 2026 SCC Online SC 7, that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is void ab initio and the ineligibility can be raised at any stage — even in execution — and upon the finding of the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master that the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral in each matter, the Court dismissed all the listed Commercial Execution Applications and set aside the respective arbitral awards (connected Interim Applications and Chamber Summons, if any, dismissed/disposed). Parties are open to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings; the period from invocation till date is excluded for limitation; and liberty to apply is preserved where an express agreement in writing, in terms of the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, waived the sole arbitrator's ineligibility or the right to object under Section 12(5).

902 TO 985 & 987 TO 1117 & 1120 TO 1121 & 1124 1134 & 1138 TO 1151 & .doc

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

SERIAL NOS. 902 TO 985, 987 TO 1117, 1120 TO 1121, 1124 TO 1134, 1138 TO 1151, 1154 TO 1169

Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b. OM Gujar Law Chambers for Applicant in Sr. Nos. 901, 902, 920, 921, 926, 977, 986, 991, 996, 997, 998, 1000, 1001, 1014, 1061 to 1064, 1118, 1119, 1122, 1123, 1134 to 1140, 1152, 1153.

Mr. Janmesh Vora i/b. Mehta & Padamsey for Respondent in Sr. No. 919.

Ms. Rahila Memon a/w. Ms. Reet Jain i/b. S.I. Joshi & Co. for Applicant in Sr Nos. 925 and 1128.

Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b. GNP Legal for Applicant in Sr. Nos. 972, 999, 1065, 1066.

Ms. Simran K. Raj i/b. Ms. Vedika Pedhambkar i/b. Ms. Tikshta Modi for the Applicant in Sr. Nos. 1125 to 1127, 1129, 1130 1132 & 1141. Ms. Aditi Biswas i/b. Vidhi Partners for Applicant in Sr. No. 919.

Mr. Suraj Gupta i/b. SG Legal & Associates for Applicant (Claimant) in Sr. Nos. 906, 909, 974, 978, 982, 983, 1012, 1017, 1018, 1022 to 1033, 1042, 1044, 1046 to 1053, 1056 to 1060, 1068, 1072, 1075, 1076, 1078, 1079, 1133, 1154, 1155, 1156, 1157, 1158, 1167.

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

1 2026 SCC Online SC 7

Nikita Gadgil 1/3

Digitally signed by NIKITA NIKITA YOGESH YOGESH GADGIL GADGIL Date: 2026.04.09 19:31:44 +0530

902 TO 985 & 987 TO 1117 & 1120 TO 1121 & 1124 1134 & 1138 TO 1151 & .doc

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, the said applications, in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, stand dismissed. The respective arbitral awards stand set aside and the Commercial Execution Applications 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.

Nikita Gadgil 2/3

902 TO 985 & 987 TO 1117 & 1120 TO 1121 & 1124 1134 & 1138 TO 1151 & .doc

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 3/3