Axis Bank Formerly Known as Uti Bank Ltd. vs Amirkhan Mohamad Kalawant(Judgement Debtor) — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Axis Bank Formerly Known as Uti Bank Ltd. vs Amirkhan Mohamad Kalawant(Judgement Debtor) — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respective arbitration awards set aside; Execution Applications and connected Interim Applications dismissed/disposed; parties left free to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings; limitation period from invocation of arbitration till the date of the order excluded.

Issue for consideration

Whether the arbitration awards sought to be executed in these matters are vitiated by the unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator and ought to be set aside, with corresponding disposal of the Execution Applications and connected Interim Applications.

Court's answer

Accepting the submission that the Arbitrator was unilaterally appointed — a defect which, per the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International, is void ab initio and can be raised even in execution — this Court set aside the respective awards, and the Execution Application as well as the connected Interim Applications stood dismissed/disposed.

Ratio / Principle

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

Key takeaways

For limitation purposes in any fresh arbitration proceedings, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till the date of this order shall be excluded.ratio¶¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Abhay Ahuja, J., order dated 28th April, 2026 — In Execution Application No. 404 of 2025 (with Interim Application No. 3255 of 2024) and five connected Execution Applications with Interim Applications, counsel for the Applicant (Ms. Bijal Gogri) pointed out that the Arbitrator in these matters had been unilaterally appointed, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Airports Authority of India, 2026 SCC Online SC 7, wherein it was observed that a unilateral appointment of arbitrator is void ab initio and the ineligibility can be raised at any stage, even in execution. Acting on this, the Court set aside the respective awards; the Execution Applications and connected Interim Applications stood dismissed/disposed. The parties were declared free to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law, and, for limitation, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till the date of the order was directed to be excluded. Counsel appeared only for the Applicant; none appeared for the Respondent.

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