KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. vs DORO FASHIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND 2 ORS. — EXA/168/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020003152026

Filing Number

EXA/315/2026

Filing Date

06-Jan-2026

Registration No

EXA/168/2026

Registration Date

09-Feb-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay Ahuja

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay Ahuja

Bench Type

Single

Category

EXECUTION ( 15 )

Judicial Branch

Original

Decision Date

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

    Adv. adv amol shinde

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DORO FASHIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND 2 ORS.

  2. 2.DHAVAL PRADEEP MEHTA

  3. 3.PREKSH DHAVAL MEHTA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    —View PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in 189 consolidated matters involving Kotak Mahindra Bank against Doro Fashions and others, finding that the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral and thus void ab initio per Supreme Court precedent. The court dismissed all execution and connected applications, but permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with time already spent excluded from limitation periods. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-May-2026

    For Dismissal in view of decision in Bhadra International Pvt. Ltd. V/s Airports Authority of India

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay Ahuja

  4. 06-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/168/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in 189 consolidated matters involving Kotak Mahindra Bank against Doro Fashions and others, finding that the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral and thus void ab initio per Supreme Court precedent. The court dismissed all execution and connected applications, but permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with time already spent excluded from limitation periods. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case