KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED AMOL B SHINDE vs ASHISH KRISHNACHA PANDEY — EXA/1220/2025

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020174292025

Filing Number

EXA/17428/2025

Filing Date

12-Jun-2025

Registration No

EXA/1220/2025

Registration Date

10-Jul-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 21-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED AMOL B SHINDE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ASHISH KRISHNACHA PANDEY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    —View PDF

    Summary of EXA/1220/2025 The Bombay High Court set aside multiple arbitral awards and dismissed execution applications after finding that sole arbitrators were unilaterally appointed in violation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Following the Supreme Court's Bhadra International precedent, the court ruled such appointments void ab initio and allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with time already spent excluded from limitation periods. 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-Jun-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/1220/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of EXA/1220/2025 The Bombay High Court set aside multiple arbitral awards and dismissed execution applications after finding that sole arbitrators were unilaterally appointed in violation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Following the Supreme Court's Bhadra International precedent, the court ruled such appointments void ab initio and allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with time already spent excluded from limitation periods. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case