← Library
Bombay High CourtIA/2738/2025dismissed

Tata Capital Limited Formerly Known As Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd v. Ramesh Mohazade (Borrower)

2026-04-15Hon'Ble Shri Justice Abhay Ahuja2 pages

38. IA 2738-25 in EXA 1878-25.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2738 OF 2025 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 1878 OF 2025 Tata Capital Limited ...Applicant V/s.

Ramesh Mohazade (Borrower)

...Respondent

Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b O. M. Gujar Law Chambers for the Applicant. Mr. Amol Wagh, for the Respondents No. 1 and 2.

CORAM

:

ABHAY AHUJA, J.

DATE :

15th APRIL, 2026 P.C. :

1.

Mr. Wagh, learned Counsel appears for the Respondents No. 1 and 2 and submits that in this matter there has been a unilateral appointment of Arbitrator and this Court may pass appropriate orders in view of the decision in the case of Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Airports Authority of India1, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that unilateral appointment of arbitrator is void ab initio and the ineligibility can be raised at any stage and even in execution.

2.

In view of the aforesaid, the award dated 14th September, 2022, is therefore, set aside and the Execution Application as well as the connected Interim Application stand dismissed/disposed. 2026 SCC Online SC 7 Digitally signed by NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL Date:

2026.04.16 21:20:51 +0530 NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL Nikita Gadgil 1/2

38. IA 2738-25 in EXA 1878-25.doc 3.

Also in view of the aforesaid, the bailable warrant / process issued by this Court under execution, stands cancelled. 4.

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

5.

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

6.

Liberty to apply in the event there exists an express agreement in writing in terms of proviso to Section 12(5) of 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