KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. M. B. KALE , S.M. SURYAWANSHI, ONKAR GUJAR vs JAGDISH BANSILAL KHURANA AND 2 ORS. — EXA/1375/2011

Case under Code of Civil Procedure. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020282922011

Filing Number

EXA/2025/2011

Filing Date

28-Sep-2015

Registration No

EXA/1375/2011

Registration Date

23-Dec-2011

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. M. B. KALE , S.M. SURYAWANSHI, ONKAR GUJAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.JAGDISH BANSILAL KHURANA AND 2 ORS.

  2. 2.SUCHETA JAGDISH KHURANA

  3. 3.M/S POORTI RENT-A-CAR and LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.

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 unilaterally appointed in violation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Following the Supreme Court's precedent that unilateral arbitrator appointments are void ab initio, the court dismissed the related execution and interim applications. The parties were permitted to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the limitation period tolled from the original invocation, unless there exists a written waiver agreement under Section 12(5) of the Act. 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. 28-Sep-2015

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/1375/2011

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court set aside all arbitral awards in these consolidated matters, finding that the sole arbitrator had been unilaterally appointed in violation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Following the Supreme Court's precedent that unilateral arbitrator appointments are void ab initio, the court dismissed the related execution and interim applications. The parties were permitted to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the limitation period tolled from the original invocation, unless there exists a written waiver agreement under Section 12(5) of the Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case