KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITE vs ABDULALI HASAN SHAIKH AND ORS — EXA/1933/2025

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020010142025

Filing Number

EXA/1014/2025

Filing Date

13-Jan-2025

Registration No

EXA/1933/2025

Registration Date

16-Sep-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 LIMITE

    Adv. ASHWIN S TRIPATHI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ABDULALI HASAN SHAIKH AND ORS

  2. 2.SHAHID ABDUL SHAIKH

  3. 3.FATIMA ABDUL SHAIKH

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's appointment was unilateral and thus void ab initio, following Supreme Court precedent in Bhadra International. All related commercial and execution applications were dismissed, with parties permitted to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, excluding the prior arbitration period from the limitation timeline. 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. 13-Jan-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/1933/2025

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's appointment was unilateral and thus void ab initio, following Supreme Court precedent in Bhadra International. All related commercial and execution applications were dismissed, with parties permitted to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, excluding the prior arbitration period from the limitation timeline. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case