Dismissed¶17

Aditya Birla Capital Limited v. Dhanamt Sahu

Bombay HC23 Jan 2026IA/6848/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: unilateral appointment of sole arbitrator; void ab initio; ineligibility raised in execution; arbitral awards set aside; Commercial Execution Applications and connected Interim Applications dismissed/disposed; fresh arbitration permitted; limitation exclusion from invocation of arbitration till date; Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India (2026 SCC Online SC 7); Aditya Birla Capital Limited v. Pratapchandra Das; Bombay High Court; Abhay Ahuja J.; 29 April 2026.

What did the court decide?

Setting aside of the respective arbitral awards; liberty to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law; exclusion, for limitation, of the period from the invocation of the arbitration till the date of the order ¶17

Aditya Birla Capital Limited vs Dhanamt Sahu — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the arbitral awards in these matters, obtained pursuant to a unilateral appointment of the sole arbitrator, should be set aside, the ineligibility being capable of being raised at any stage and even in execution +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The respective arbitral awards stand set aside; consequently, the Commercial Execution Applications/Execution Applications and the connected Interim Applications stand dismissed/disposed

¶17

Ratio / Principle

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

¶18

Key takeaways

For limitation, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till today is to be excluded in initiating fresh arbitration proceedingsratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Abhay Ahuja, J., 29 April 2026 — Batch of five Interim Applications in Execution Applications (lead matter: Aditya Birla Capital Limited v. Pratapchandra Das): Acting on the submission that in all these matters the sole arbitrator had been unilaterally appointed — a defect which, per the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Airports Authority of India, 2026 SCC Online SC 7, renders the appointment void ab initio and whose ineligibility can be raised at any stage and even in execution — the Court set aside the respective arbitral awards and directed that the Commercial Execution Applications/Execution Applications and the connected Interim Applications stand dismissed/disposed. The parties were left free to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law, and, for limitation purposes, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till the date of the order was directed to be excluded.

Aditya Birla Capital Limited v. Dhanamt Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Birla Capital Limited v. Dhanamt Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

L and T Finance Limited vs Shraddha Tractors

Devinder D. Ghai vs Ram Prakash Anand and 4 Ors.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Jagdish Chauhan S/O Dhirubhai Ishafatanisheri and Anr.

Jacob Vinoj Mathew vs Vinesh Mathew

Peace Lake Shipping Sa vs M v Peace Angel Imo No 9547790

Aditya Birla Capital Limited vs Pratapchandra Das