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.
CNR: HCBM020008152025
e-Filing Number
09-01-2025
Filing Number
EXA/815/2025
Filing Date
09-01-2025
Registration No
EXA/433/2025
Registration Date
01-03-2025
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
09th June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OFF
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KotaK Mahindra Bank Tikshta Modi
Respondent(s)
Estevan Elvis Dsouza
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY AHUJA
For Dismissal in view of decision in Bhadra International Pvt. Ltd. V/s Airports Authority of India
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-06-2026 | For Dismissal in view of decision in Bhadra International Pvt. Ltd. V/s Airports Authority of India |
Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts