KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. vs TIRUPATI BALAJI CORPORATION AND 3 ORS. — EXA/273/2019

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 11(2). Disposed: Contested--WITHDRAWN on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020247872018

Filing Number

EXA/2344/2018

Filing Date

03-Sep-2018

Registration No

EXA/273/2019

Registration Date

16-Apr-2019

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajesh S. Patil

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajesh S. Patil

Bench Type

Single

Category

EXECUTION ( 15 )

Judicial Branch

Original

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--WITHDRAWN

Last updated 07-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 11(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

    Adv. MANMOHAN,-, -

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.TIRUPATI BALAJI CORPORATION AND 3 ORS.

  2. 2.DEVANG BHAGWANDAS MEHTA S/O BHAGWANDAS NAGARDAS MEHTA

  3. 3.USHA MEHTA W/O BHAGWANDAS NAGARDAS MEHTA

  4. 4.NITAI FLOUROSIL CORPORATION

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajesh S. PatilView PDF

    The High Court of Bombay granted Kotak Mahindra Bank's withdrawal of its execution application and declared the arbitral award void-ab-initio, holding that an award arising from a unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is non-executable even at the execution stage. The court permitted the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the time period already spent excluded from the limitation period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    —

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajesh S. Patil

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajesh S. PatilView PDF

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 03-Sep-2018

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/273/2019

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Bombay granted Kotak Mahindra Bank's withdrawal of its execution application and declared the arbitral award void-ab-initio, holding that an award arising from a unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is non-executable even at the execution stage. The court permitted the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the time period already spent excluded from the limitation period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case