KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. vs MOHD ASIF KHAN — EXA/171/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 11(2). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020016632021

Filing Number

EXA/1651/2021

Filing Date

18-Jan-2021

Registration No

EXA/171/2023

Registration Date

15-Feb-2023

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-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 10-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 11(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

    Adv. Vishal Tambat

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MOHD ASIF KHAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    The Bombay High Court dismissed multiple applications and set aside arbitral awards in cases involving unilateral appointment of sole arbitrators, following the Supreme Court's decision that such appointments are void ab initio and ineligibility can be raised at any stage. The court allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, excluding prior time from limitation periods, unless there was an express written agreement waiving the arbitrator's ineligibility under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-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. 06-Jan-2023

    Shri. S. B. Bhansali (Prothonotary Senior Master))View PDF

  5. 11-Nov-2022

    Shri. S. B. Bhansali (Prothonotary Senior Master))View PDF

  6. 11-Nov-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 18-Jan-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/171/2023

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court dismissed multiple applications and set aside arbitral awards in cases involving unilateral appointment of sole arbitrators, following the Supreme Court's decision that such appointments are void ab initio and ineligibility can be raised at any stage. The court allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, excluding prior time from limitation periods, unless there was an express written agreement waiving the arbitrator's ineligibility 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