HDFC BANK LTD. THROUGH AUTHORIZED PERSON SHUBHAM SAURAV, LEGAL MANAGER vs MRINAL KISHOR MAYANK — 35/2023

Case under Arbitration Act Section 36, r/w, SEC 2(e). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

EXECUITION CASES

CNR: BRVA010010212023

Filing Number

135/2023

Filing Date

01-Feb-2023

Registration No

35/2023

Registration Date

01-Feb-2023

Court

Vaishali DJ Div.

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Arbitration Act Section 36, r/w, SEC 2(e)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HDFC BANK LTD. THROUGH AUTHORIZED PERSON SHUBHAM SAURAV, LEGAL MANAGER

    Adv. ALOK SWAMI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MRINAL KISHOR MAYANK

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    Order

    The court dismissed HDFC Bank's execution case against Mrinal Kishor Mayank, holding that the arbitral award dated 04.11.2020 was void ab initio because it was passed by a sole arbitrator unilaterally appointed by the decree holder without the other party's consent. The court found such unilateral appointment violates Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, rendering the arbitrator ineligible and the award unenforceable, citing Supreme Court precedents establishing that unilaterally appointed arbitrators cannot inspire confidence in independence and impartiality. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  4. 16-Feb-2026

    Hearing On Addmission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  5. 02-Jan-2026

    Hearing On Addmission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  6. 27-Nov-2025

    Hearing On Addmission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  7. 29-Oct-2025

    Hearing On Addmission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  8. 29-Aug-2025

    Hearing On Addmission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  9. 29-Jul-2025

    Hearing On Addmission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  10. 08-Jul-2025

    Hearing On Addmission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  11. 11-Jun-2025

    Hearing On Addmission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  12. 02-May-2025

    Hearing On Addmission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  13. 17-Mar-2025

    Hearing On Addmission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  14. 30-Jan-2025

    Hearing On Addmission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  15. 13-Dec-2024

    Hearing On Addmission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  16. 21-Oct-2024

    Hearing On Addmission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  17. 27-Aug-2024

    Hearing On Addmission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  18. 28-Jun-2024

    Hearing On Addmission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  19. 29-Apr-2024

    Hearing On Addmission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  20. 28-Feb-2024

    Hearing On Addmission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  21. 11-Jan-2024

    Hearing On Addmission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  22. 28-Nov-2023

    Hearing On Addmission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  23. 21-Sep-2023

    Hearing On Addmission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  24. 07-Jul-2023

    Hearing On Addmission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  25. 08-Jun-2023

    Hearing On Addmission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  26. 12-May-2023

    Hearing On Addmission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  27. 27-Apr-2023

    Hearing On Addmission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  28. 03-Apr-2023

    Hearing On Addmission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  29. 27-Feb-2023

    Hearing On Addmission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  30. 03-Feb-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  31. 01-Feb-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 35/2023

casestatus.in Summary

The court dismissed HDFC Bank's execution case against Mrinal Kishor Mayank, holding that the arbitral award dated 04.11.2020 was void ab initio because it was passed by a sole arbitrator unilaterally appointed by the decree holder without the other party's consent. The court found such unilateral appointment violates Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, rendering the arbitrator ineligible and the award unenforceable, citing Supreme Court precedents establishing that unilaterally appointed arbitrators cannot inspire confidence in independence and impartiality. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case