KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. M. B. KALE AND S. M. SURYAWANSHI AND OMKAR GUJAR vs VIJAY DATTATRAY BARASKAR and ORS. — EXA/359/2008

Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020212912008

Filing Number

EXA/341/2008

Filing Date

15-Sep-2008

Registration No

EXA/359/2008

Registration Date

31-Dec-2008

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay Ahuja

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay Ahuja

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Original

Decision Date

17-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 27-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. M. B. KALE AND S. M. SURYAWANSHI AND OMKAR GUJAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.VIJAY DATTATRAY BARASKAR and ORS.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    The Bombay High Court set aside all arbitral awards in these consolidated matters, finding that the sole arbitrator had been appointed unilaterally in violation of arbitration law. Following Supreme Court precedent that unilateral arbitrator appointments are void ab initio, the court dismissed all execution applications and interim applications. The parties are permitted to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, with the limitation period excluded for the time already spent in the void proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Sep-2025

    For Direction

    Shri. A. H. Laddhad(Prothonotary Senior Master)

  4. 11-Aug-2025

    Shri. A. H. Laddhad(Prothonotary Senior Master)View PDF

  5. 11-Aug-2025

    For Direction

    Shri. A. H. Laddhad(Prothonotary Senior Master)

  6. 04-Aug-2025

    Shri. A. H. Laddhad(Prothonotary Senior Master)View PDF

  7. 04-Aug-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 15-Sep-2008

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/359/2008

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside all arbitral awards in these consolidated matters, finding that the sole arbitrator had been appointed unilaterally in violation of arbitration law. Following Supreme Court precedent that unilateral arbitrator appointments are void ab initio, the court dismissed all execution applications and interim applications. The parties are permitted to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, with the limitation period excluded for the time already spent in the void proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case