KotaK Mahindra Bank Tikshta Modi vs Estevan Elvis Dsouza — EXA/433/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Section Rule 11(2). Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 09th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020008152025

e-Filing Number

09-01-2025

Filing Number

EXA/815/2025

Filing Date

09-Jan-2025

Registration No

EXA/433/2025

Registration Date

01-Mar-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

09-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Section Rule 11(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KotaK Mahindra Bank Tikshta Modi

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Estevan Elvis Dsouza

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple cases (Serial Nos. 901-920, 924) because the sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed, following Supreme Court precedent that such appointments are void ab initio. The court dismissed all execution and interim applications, allowing parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the time period excluded from limitation calculations, unless parties had expressly waived objections in writing under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Jun-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. 09-Jan-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/433/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple cases (Serial Nos. 901-920, 924) because the sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed, following Supreme Court precedent that such appointments are void ab initio. The court dismissed all execution and interim applications, allowing parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the time period excluded from limitation calculations, unless parties had expressly waived objections in writing under Section 12(5) of 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