Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. v. Vaishnavi Tours And Travels And 2 ORS.

901 to 942, 944 to 1132, 1138, 1141 and 1145.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SERIAL NOS. 901 TO 942, 944 TO 1132, 1138, 1141 AND 1145 Mr. Darshit K. Jain, through VC with Ms. Nisha Parmar i/b Mr. Tushar Goradia for the Applicants in Sr. No. 902.

Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b O. M. Gujar Law Chambers for the Applicants in Sr. No. 939,941,1131,1138 and 1141 to 1145.

Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b GNPLegal for the Applicant in Sr. No.1025 & 1026. Mr. Suraj Gupta i/b SG Legal & Associates for the Applicants in Sr. No. 1046, 1091 and 1106.

CORAM

:

ABHAY AHUJA, J.

DATE :

17th April 2026 PC:- 1.

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 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.

2.

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, in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respective arbitral awards stand set aside Digitally signed by NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL Date:

2026.04.17 20:47:49 +0530 NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL 2026 SCC Online SC 7 Nikita Gadgil 1/2

901 to 942, 944 to 1132, 1138, 1141 and 1145.doc and the Commercial Execution / Execution Applications and the connected Interim Applications as well as the Chamber Summons, if any, accordingly stand dismissed / disposed.

3.

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

4.

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

5.

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 2/2