KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LTD vs OMPRAKASH RAMBALI RAJNARYAN SINGH — EXA/1036/2025

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020107712024

Filing Number

EXA/10765/2024

Filing Date

30-Mar-2024

Registration No

EXA/1036/2025

Registration Date

13-May-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 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LTD

    Adv. KIRAN WAMANRAO BHADANGE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.OMPRAKASH RAMBALI RAJNARYAN SINGH

  2. 2.SHEELA OMPRAKASH SINGH

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 Prime Ltd. and others, finding that the sole arbitrators were unilaterally appointed in violation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Following Supreme Court precedent, the court dismissed all connected execution and interim applications, but permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the previous limitation period excluded. 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. 12-Mar-2025

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

  5. 12-Mar-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 30-Mar-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/1036/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside all arbitral awards in these consolidated matters (Serial Nos. 902-1151) involving Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. and others, finding that the sole arbitrators were unilaterally appointed in violation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Following Supreme Court precedent, the court dismissed all connected execution and interim applications, but permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the previous limitation period excluded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case