KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs MITHLESH SINGH AND ANR — EXA/2072/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 05th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020061532025

Filing Number

EXA/6152/2025

Filing Date

26-Feb-2025

Registration No

EXA/2072/2025

Registration Date

23-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

05-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED

    Adv. S I JOSHI AND CO

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MITHLESH SINGH AND ANR

  2. 2.PUSHPRAJ SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    —View PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside all arbitral awards in these matters (serial nos. 902-1148) because the sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed, which is void ab initio under Supreme Court precedent. The court dismissed all execution applications and allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the limitation period excluded, unless written agreement waiving the arbitrator's ineligibility exists 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. 05-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. 11-Sep-2025

    Shri. A. H. Laddhad(Prothonotary Senior Master)View PDF

  5. 11-Sep-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 26-Feb-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/2072/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside all arbitral awards in these matters (serial nos. 902-1148) because the sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed, which is void ab initio under Supreme Court precedent. The court dismissed all execution applications and allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the limitation period excluded, unless written agreement waiving the arbitrator's ineligibility exists 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