Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. v. Neha Vithal Nagar And ANR.
1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION 36 N/296/2025 EXA/455/2021 SBI CARDS AND PAYMENTS SERVICES LTD.
A D THAKKAR 37 N/306/2025 EXA/410/2021 SHRIRAM CHITS (MAH) LTD.
SANJIV SHANTIKUMAR DESAI S/O. SHANTIKUMAR DESAI 38 N/308/2025 EXA/31/2022 AXIS BANK LTD.
DARSHANA UDAY DALVI 39 N/309/2025 EXA/33/2022 AXIS BANK LTD.
MANDEEP JAGIR SINGH
2/5 40 N/311/2025 EXA/7/2022 AXIS BANK LTD.
AMISH AMRATLAL SHAH 41 N/342/2025 EXA/325/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD., ROHIDAS BHANDARE 42 N/343/2025 EXA/365/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.
KALPESH GIRISH SAMANI 43 N/344/2025 EXA/369/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED SHARMILA NILESH PANCHAL 44 N/350/2025
3/5 EXA/158/2022 INDIA INFOLINE FINANCE LIMITED MOHAMMED ABDUL REHMAN AND ANR.
45 N/352/2025 EXA/156/2022 INDIA INFOLINE FINANCE LIMITED ROUSHAN RAJENDRA JHA AND ANR 46 N/357/2025 EXA/401/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LTD.
NEHA VITHAL NAGAR AND ANR.
47 N/358/2025 EXA/402/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LTD.
VEDOBROTO ASHA PRADDEP ROY 48 N/359/2025 EXA/403/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LTD.
4/5 HARSHRAJ CHANDRASHEKAR PUTHRAN None for the Applicant.
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 5th FEBRUARY, 2026 P.C. :- 1) None appears for the applicant when the matters are called out.
2) These Notices are filed under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the year 2025. 3) From the proceedings, it can be gathered that the appointment of the sole arbitrator was unilateral. 4) I have taken a view in the judgment of L & T Finance Ltd. vs. Sangeeta Bhansali & Anr. in Commercial Execution Application (L) No. 5277 of 2022, considering the latest judgment of the Supreme Court decided on 5 January, 2026, in the matter of Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Airport Authority of India, Civil Appeal No. 37-38 of 2026, wherein it has been held that even at the stage of execution, arbitral award can be set aside being void-ab-initio on the grounds that the appointment of the arbitrator was unilateral.
5/5 5) In view of the aforesaid judgment, the arbitral award in the present proceeding passed by the sole arbitrator is hereby declared to be non-est in law, non-executable and void-ab-initio. 6) Execution Application stands dismissed.
7) In sequel, Notices & the Interim Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
8) It shall be open for the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.
9) As far as limitation is concerned, the period from the invocation of the arbitration till today shall stand excluded for the purpose of initiating fresh arbitration proceedings. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)