KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs MOHAR SINGH AND ANR. — EXA/1985/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020299032023

Filing Number

EXA/29892/2023

Filing Date

23-Oct-2023

Registration No

EXA/1985/2023

Registration Date

26-Dec-2023

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla

Bench Type

Single

Category

EXECUTION ( 15 )

Judicial Branch

Original

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 10-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED

    Adv. S I JOSHI AND CO

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MOHAR SINGH AND ANR.

  2. 2.SAJJAN SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze PooniwallaView PDF

    The Bombay High Court dismissed Kotak Mahindra Bank's execution application and set aside the arbitral award, finding that the sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed in violation of the Supreme Court's Bhadra International precedent, which deems such appointments void ab initio. The court permitted the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the limitation period excluded, unless they have a written agreement waiving the arbitrator's ineligibility under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    For Dismissal in view of decision in Bhadra International Pvt. Ltd. V/s Airports Authority of India

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla

  4. 23-Oct-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/1985/2023

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court dismissed Kotak Mahindra Bank's execution application and set aside the arbitral award, finding that the sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed in violation of the Supreme Court's Bhadra International precedent, which deems such appointments void ab initio. The court permitted the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the limitation period excluded, unless they have a written agreement waiving the arbitrator's ineligibility under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case