Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Bilal Abdul Sadique Shaikh
54 & 59. N 590-2025 (common order).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NO. 590 OF 2025 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 799 OF 2022 ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
..Applicant
Versus
Bilal Abdul Sadique Shaikh & anr.
..Respondents by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Date: 2026.02.04 18:56:10 +0530 WITH NOTICE NO. 662 OF 2025 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 501 OF 2022 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
..Applicant
Versus
Ramchandra Ramhit Yadav & anr.
..Respondents None present CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 03.02.2026 P. C.
1) None appears for the applicant when the matters are called out. 2) From the proceedings, it can be gathered that the appointment of the sole arbitrator was unilateral.
3) I have taken a view in the judgment of L & T Finance Ltd. vs. Sangeeta Bhansali & Anr. in Commercial Execution Application (L) No. Anand
54 & 59. N 590-2025 (common order).doc 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, an arbitral award can be set aside being void-ab-initio on the grounds that the appointment of the arbitrator was unilateral. 4) In view of the aforesaid judgment, the arbitral awards in the present proceeding passed by the sole arbitrator are hereby declared to be non-est in law, non-executable and void-ab-initio. 5) Execution Applications along with Notices stand dismissed. 6) In sequel, the Interim Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 7) It shall be open for the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.
8) 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.) Anand