KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs VIRENDRA SHIVKUMAR CHAUHAN — EXA/499/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020168962023

Filing Number

EXA/16889/2023

Filing Date

22-Jun-2023

Registration No

EXA/499/2024

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

Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED

    Adv. ASHWIN S TRIPATHI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.VIRENDRA SHIVKUMAR CHAUHAN

  2. 2.SHIVKUMAR RAMBHARAT CHAUHAN

  3. 3.NEELAM VIRENDRA CHAUHAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    Case Summary: EXA/499/2024 The Bombay High Court set aside multiple arbitral awards in consolidated proceedings involving Kotak Mahindra Bank and the Chauhan respondents, finding that the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral and therefore void ab initio under Supreme Court precedent. The court dismissed all connected execution and interim applications, but permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the prior limitation period excluded from the new timeline, subject to any express written agreement waiving the ineligibility objection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 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

  4. 22-Jun-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/499/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: EXA/499/2024 The Bombay High Court set aside multiple arbitral awards in consolidated proceedings involving Kotak Mahindra Bank and the Chauhan respondents, finding that the sole arbitrator's appointment was unilateral and therefore void ab initio under Supreme Court precedent. The court dismissed all connected execution and interim applications, but permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the prior limitation period excluded from the new timeline, subject to any express written agreement waiving the ineligibility objection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case