KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED ACUMEN LAWYERS FIRM vs MEENA MANISH JOSHI — EXA/2247/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2). Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020319072022

Filing Number

EXA/31901/2022

Filing Date

04-Oct-2022

Registration No

EXA/2247/2024

Registration Date

28-Aug-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

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 07-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 11 (2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED ACUMEN LAWYERS FIRM

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MEENA MANISH JOSHI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF

    The Bombay High Court dismissed 190 consolidated applications and set aside arbitral awards in cases where the sole arbitrator was appointed unilaterally, following the Supreme Court's precedent that such unilateral appointments are void ab initio. The court allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the time period from the original arbitration excluded from limitation calculations, and permitted deviation only if parties had expressly waived their objection rights in writing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-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. 05-Jul-2024

    Shri. S. B. Bhansali (Prothonotary Senior Master))View PDF

  5. 05-Jul-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 04-Oct-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. EXA/2247/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court dismissed 190 consolidated applications and set aside arbitral awards in cases where the sole arbitrator was appointed unilaterally, following the Supreme Court's precedent that such unilateral appointments are void ab initio. The court allowed parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings with the time period from the original arbitration excluded from limitation calculations, and permitted deviation only if parties had expressly waived their objection rights in writing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case