KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs ANIL ABRAHAM PADIKAL — EXA/1606/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 15th April 2026.
CNR: HCBM020315042023
Filing Number
EXA/31494/2023
Filing Date
08-Nov-2023
Registration No
EXA/1606/2024
Registration Date
13-Jun-2024
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
15-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 25-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED
Adv. ASHWIN S TRIPATHI
Respondent(s)
-
1.ANIL ABRAHAM PADIKAL
-
2.KAMROONNISHA ANIL PADIKAL
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
15-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF
Summary: The Bombay High Court dismissed multiple applications and set aside all arbitral awards because the sole arbitrator in each case was appointed unilaterally, following the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Bhadra International v. Airports Authority of India that such unilateral appointments are void ab initio. The court permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings while excluding the prior arbitration period from the limitation clock and allowing relief only if parties had expressly waived their objection rights 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.
-
15-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
-
08-Nov-2023
Case filed
Registration No. EXA/1606/2024
Summary: The Bombay High Court dismissed multiple applications and set aside all arbitral awards because the sole arbitrator in each case was appointed unilaterally, following the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Bhadra International v. Airports Authority of India that such unilateral appointments are void ab initio. The court permitted parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings while excluding the prior arbitration period from the limitation clock and allowing relief only if parties had expressly waived their objection rights 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