KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LIMITED vs TAHAB ALI SAHEB ALI SHAIK — EXA/12/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2). Disposed: Contested-- on 08th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020099932024

Filing Number

EXA/9988/2024

Filing Date

21-Mar-2024

Registration No

EXA/12/2026

Registration Date

08-Jan-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay Ahuja

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay Ahuja

Bench Type

Single

Category

EXECUTION ( 15 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS ( 99 )

Judicial Branch

Original

Decision Date

08-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LIMITED

    Adv. KIRAN WAMANRAO BHADANGE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.TAHAB ALI SAHEB ALI SHAIK

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

    —View PDF

    Summary: The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple cases involving Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited following the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International that unilateral arbitrator appointment is void ab initio. Finding that the sole arbitrator appointments in these matters were unilateral, the court dismissed all execution and interim applications and permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, excluding the period of prior arbitration from limitation calculations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-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-Dec-2025

    Registrar(os)/Prothonotary and Sr. MasterView PDF

  5. 11-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 21-Mar-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/12/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple cases involving Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited following the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadra International that unilateral arbitrator appointment is void ab initio. Finding that the sole arbitrator appointments in these matters were unilateral, the court dismissed all execution and interim applications and permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, excluding the period of prior arbitration from limitation calculations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case