M/S. KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LTD. vs DUJODWALA PAPER CHEMICALS LTD. AND 2 ORS. Advocate - AAGAM J DOSHI, DEF NO. 3 — EXA/1308/2016

Case under Code of Civil Procedure. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 08th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020123362016

Filing Number

EXA/1175/2016

Filing Date

05-May-2016

Registration No

EXA/1308/2016

Registration Date

12-Jul-2016

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

08-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S. KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LTD.

    Adv. Vishal Tambat ,DECREE HOLDER/PETITIONER,DECREE HOLDER/PETITIONER, DECREE HOLDER/PETITIONER

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DUJODWALA PAPER CHEMICALS LTD. AND 2 ORS. Advocate - AAGAM J DOSHI, DEF NO. 3

  2. 2.OMPRAKASH RAMGOPAL DUJODWALA

  3. 3.VINEET DUJODWALA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

    —View PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple cases (Serial Nos. 912-1035) involving Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. and Dujodwala Paper Chemicals Ltd., finding the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral and void ab initio, per Supreme Court precedent. The court dismissed all related execution and interim applications, permitting parties to initiate fresh arbitration while excluding the prior arbitration period 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. 05-May-2016

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/1308/2016

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards in multiple cases (Serial Nos. 912-1035) involving Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. and Dujodwala Paper Chemicals Ltd., finding the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral and void ab initio, per Supreme Court precedent. The court dismissed all related execution and interim applications, permitting parties to initiate fresh arbitration while excluding the prior arbitration period 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