KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs HARSH SHAILENDRA MISHRA — EXA/1677/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 15th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020141822023

Filing Number

EXA/14175/2023

Filing Date

24-May-2023

Registration No

EXA/1677/2024

Registration Date

15-Jun-2024

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

15-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 25-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED

    Adv. Pankaj Popatrao Deokar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HARSH SHAILENDRA MISHRA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    Summary The Bombay High Court dismissed multiple applications and set aside all arbitral awards after finding that the sole arbitrators were appointed unilaterally, following the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Bhadra International that such appointments are void ab initio. The court allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the time period already spent excluded from the limitation period, except where parties have an express written agreement waiving objections 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. 15-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. 24-May-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/1677/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Bombay High Court dismissed multiple applications and set aside all arbitral awards after finding that the sole arbitrators were appointed unilaterally, following the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Bhadra International that such appointments are void ab initio. The court allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the time period already spent excluded from the limitation period, except where parties have an express written agreement waiving objections 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