KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED. vs PARVEZ ABDUL HAI KHAN — EXA/489/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 17th April 2026.
CNR: HCBM020163552023
Filing Number
EXA/16348/2023
Filing Date
17-Jun-2023
Registration No
EXA/489/2024
Registration Date
21-Feb-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
17-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 27-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED.
Adv. ASHWIN S TRIPATHI
Respondent(s)
-
1.PARVEZ ABDUL HAI KHAN
-
2.ABDUL HAI NAWAZ KHAN
-
3.ALIAHMED MOHMEDHAYAT CHOWDHARY
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF
The Bombay High Court set aside multiple arbitral awards in consolidated proceedings against Kotak Mahindra Bank and others, finding that the sole arbitrator was appointed unilaterally in violation of law. Following Supreme Court precedent that unilateral arbitrator appointments are void ab initio, the court dismissed all execution and interim applications, while permitting parties to initiate fresh arbitration with the time period already spent excluded from limitation calculations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-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
-
17-Jun-2023
Case filed
Registration No. EXA/489/2024
The Bombay High Court set aside multiple arbitral awards in consolidated proceedings against Kotak Mahindra Bank and others, finding that the sole arbitrator was appointed unilaterally in violation of law. Following Supreme Court precedent that unilateral arbitrator appointments are void ab initio, the court dismissed all execution and interim applications, while permitting parties to initiate fresh arbitration with the time period already spent excluded from limitation calculations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts