KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs MANICKAM R GOUNDER — EXA/1005/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11(2). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 04th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020005072024

Filing Number

EXA/507/2024

Filing Date

05-Jan-2024

Registration No

EXA/1005/2025

Registration Date

09-May-2025

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

04-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 LIMITED

    Adv. ASHWIN S TRIPATHI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MANICKAM R GOUNDER

  2. 2.JAYABAL GAJARAJ KAVUNDER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    —View PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside all arbitral awards in these consolidated matters (serial nos. 902-1151) involving Kotak Mahindra Bank, finding that the sole arbitrator appointments were unilateral and void ab initio per Supreme Court precedent. The court dismissed the related execution and interim applications, permitting parties to initiate fresh arbitration while excluding prior limitation periods and preserving the right to apply if express written waivers exist under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-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. 23-Apr-2025

    Shri. A. H. Laddhad(Prothonotary Senior Master)View PDF

  5. 23-Apr-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 05-Jan-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/1005/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside all arbitral awards in these consolidated matters (serial nos. 902-1151) involving Kotak Mahindra Bank, finding that the sole arbitrator appointments were unilateral and void ab initio per Supreme Court precedent. The court dismissed the related execution and interim applications, permitting parties to initiate fresh arbitration while excluding prior limitation periods and preserving the right to apply if express written waivers exist under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case