Dismissed¶24

Aditya Birla Capital Limited v. Saumya Raveendran

Bombay HC17 Jan 2026IA/8235/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unilateral appointment of sole arbitrator; execution of arbitral awards; awards set aside; execution applications dismissed; fresh arbitration permitted; limitation exclusion from invocation till order date; Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, 2026 SCC Online SC 7; Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited; Danco Enterprises India Private Limited; Aditya Birla Capital Limited; Khyati Enterprises; Saumya Raveendran; Santosh Kumar Biswal; Bombay High Court; Abhay Ahuja, J.; 5 May 2026.

What did the court decide?

Arbitral awards set aside; Commercial Execution Applications/Execution Applications and connected Interim Applications dismissed/disposed; liberty to initiate fresh arbitration, with the period from invocation of arbitration till the date of the order excluded for limitation. ¶24

Aditya Birla Capital Limited vs Saumya Raveendran — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether, given the alleged unilateral appointment of the sole arbitrator in these matters, the arbitral awards should be set aside and the Commercial Execution Applications/Execution Applications and connected Interim Applications dismissed/disposed. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The respective arbitral awards stand set aside, following the submission that in all these matters the appointment of the sole arbitrator was unilateral and covered by Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Airports Authority of India.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The Commercial Execution Applications/Execution Applications and the connected Interim Applications, if any, stand dismissed/disposed.

¶24

Key takeaways

It is open to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.ratio¶28
For limitation purposes, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till today is to be excluded in initiating fresh arbitration proceedings.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Abhay Ahuja, J., 5 May 2026 — Batch disposal of five execution matters: Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Danco Enterprises India Private Limited (I.A. 2557/2025 in E.A.(L) 12327/2025); Execution Application No. 1990 of 2018; Aditya Birla Capital Limited v. Khyati Enterprises (I.A. 5361/2025 in E.A. 2417/2025); Aditya Birla Capital Limited v. Saumya Raveendran (I.A. 8235/2025 in E.A. 4 of 2026); and Aditya Birla Capital Limited v. Santosh Kumar Biswal (E.A. 2271/2025 with I.A. 4682/2025). Acting on counsel's submission that in all these matters the sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed, and relying on Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Airports Authority of India, 2026 SCC Online SC 7 (unilateral appointment of arbitrator void ab initio; ineligibility raisable at any stage, even in execution), the Court set aside the respective arbitral awards and dismissed/disposed the Commercial Execution Applications/Execution Applications and connected Interim Applications. The parties were left free to initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law, with the period from invocation of arbitration till the date of the order directed to be excluded for limitation.

¶1

33,46,57 & 1083.doc

¶2

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

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2557 OF 2025 IN

¶4

EXECUTION APPLICATION (L) NO. 12327 OF 2025

¶5

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited … Applicant Versus

¶6

Danco Enterprises India Private Limited

¶7

… Respondent

¶8

WITH

¶9

EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 1990 OF 2018

¶10

AND

¶11

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5361 OF 2025 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 2417 OF 2025

¶12

Aditya Birla Capital Limited … Applicant Versus Khyati Enterprises … Respondent

¶13

AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8235 OF 2025 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 4 OF 2026

¶14

Aditya Birla Capital Limited … Applicant Versus Saumya Raveendran … Respondent

¶15

AND EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 2271 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4682 OF 2025 IN

¶16

EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 2271 OF 2025

¶17

Aditya Birla Capital Limited … Applicant Versus Santosh Kumar Biswal … Respondent

¶18

Mandar M. 1/3

¶19

33,46,57 & 1083.doc

¶20

Ms. Simran K. Raj i/b. Tikshta Modi, Advocate for the Applicant. None for the Respondent.

¶21

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 5^th May, 2026

¶22

P.C. :

¶23

Ms. Raj, learned Counsel appears for the Applicant and submits that in all these matters the appointment of the sole arbitrator has been unilateral and covered by 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.

¶24

Accordingly, the respective arbitral awards stand set aside and the Commercial Execution Applications/Execution Applications and the connected Interim Applications, if any, to accordingly stand dismissed/disposed.

¶25

1 2026 SCC Online SC 7

¶26

Mandar M. 2/3

¶27

33,46,57 & 1083.doc

¶28

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

¶29

As far as limitation is concerned, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till today be excluded in initiating fresh arbitration proceedings.

¶30

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶31

Mandar M. 3/3

Aditya Birla Capital Limited v. Saumya Raveendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Birla Capital Limited v. Saumya Raveendran

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

Kroll Trustee Services Limited vs Mt Aeon( Imo NO.9576818)

Kroll Trustee Services Limited vs Mt Aeon (Imo No. 9576818)

Oag Offshore Pipeline Services Sdn Bhd vs Dlb Kenenna Imo 8354562

K. K. Silk Mills Ltd. vs Karsiya Cotton Mills

Tata Capital Limited vs Sudhir Sharad Khaladkar and Anr.

Tata Capital Limited vs Siddharth Arjun Ayachi and Anr.