KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. vs SANDEEP SHYAMSUNDER SINGH — EXA/203/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020009192026

Filing Number

EXA/919/2026

Filing Date

12-Jan-2026

Registration No

EXA/203/2026

Registration Date

18-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.SANDEEP SHYAMSUNDER SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    —View PDF

    Case Summary: EXA/203/2026 - Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Sandeep Shyamsunder Singh The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple consolidated matters because the sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed in violation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Following the Supreme Court's Bhadra International precedent, the court held that unilateral arbitrator appointment is void ab initio and arbitrator ineligibility can be challenged at any stage. The court dismissed all execution applications and permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the prior limitation period excluded, unless there was express written waiver under Section 12(5) of the Act. 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. 12-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/203/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: EXA/203/2026 - Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Sandeep Shyamsunder Singh The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple consolidated matters because the sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed in violation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Following the Supreme Court's Bhadra International precedent, the court held that unilateral arbitrator appointment is void ab initio and arbitrator ineligibility can be challenged at any stage. The court dismissed all execution applications and permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the prior limitation period excluded, unless there was express written waiver under Section 12(5) of the Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case