Bombay High Court
AMBIT FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITEDversusARK INTERNATIONAL AND 2 OTHER
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ABHAY AHUJA
Holding
A unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator is void ab initio, rendering the arbitral award set aside and related execution applications dismissed.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered a batch of arbitration matters where the sole arbitrator had been appointed unilaterally. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, the Court held that such unilateral appointments are void ab initio and the ineligibility of the arbitrator can be raised at any stage, including execution. Consequently, the Court dismissed the applications, set aside the arbitral awards, and disposed of the related commercial execution and interim applications. The Court directed that the parties may commence fresh arbitration proceedings, excluding the period from the original arbitration’s invocation for limitation purposes. It also noted that parties may invoke the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if there is a written agreement waiving the arbitrator’s ineligibility.
Issues considered
- Whether a unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator is void ab initio.
- Whether the objection to an arbitrator’s ineligibility can be raised at any stage, including during execution.
- What is the effect of a void appointment on existing arbitral awards and execution applications?
- How should limitation periods be computed for initiating fresh arbitration after a void appointment?
- Whether a written agreement under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can waive the arbitrator’s ineligibility.
Legislation cited
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 12(5)
Subjects
- Arbitration
- Unilateral appointment
- Arbitrator ineligibility
- Section 12(5)
- Limitation period
- Fresh arbitration
- Execution of arbitral award
Judgment
901 to 1033, 1035 to 1055 and 1057 to 1148.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SERIAL NOS. 901 TO 1033, 1035 TO 1055 AND 1057 TO 1148
M/s Bijal Gogri i/b GNP Legal for the Applicant in Sr no. 975.
Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b O. M. Gujar Law Chambers for the Applicant in Sr.
No. 923, 924, 925, 936, 969, 976, 977, 978, 999, 1033, 1035, 1054,
1078, 1079, 1080, 1081, 1090 to 1106 and 1144 to 1148.
Mr. Pawan Kilnake i/b SG Legal & Associates for the Applicant in Sr.
No. 940, 947, 948, 961, 962, 965, 971, 988, 989, 990, 992, 1076,
1107, 1108, 1109, 1110, 1111, 1120 and 1121.
Mr. Sangram Suryavanshi with Mr. Shubham Pasvant for the Applicant
in Sr. No. 973 and 974.
Ms. Merlin Sam i/b P. D. Jain & Co. for the Applicant in Sr. No. 1075.
None present in other matters.
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE : 8th April 2026
PC:-
1. All these matters have been listed in view of the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhadra International (India) Pvt.
Ltd. and Others vs. Airports Authority of India 1 where the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed that unilateral appointment of arbitrator
is void ab initio and the ineligibility can be raised at any stage and even
in execution.
2. Since in all these matters it has been found by the office of the
Digitally
signed by
NIKITA
NIKITA YOGESH Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court that the appointment of the
YOGESH GADGIL
GADGIL Date:
2026.04.08
20:08:39
+0530
1 2026 SCC Online SC 7
Nikita Gadgil 1/2
901 to 1033, 1035 to 1055 and 1057 to 1148.doc
sole arbitrator has been unilateral, the said applications, in view of the
above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, stand dismissed. The
respective arbitral awards stand set aside and the Commercial
Execution Applications and the connected Interim Applications as well
as the Chamber Summons, if any, stand accordingly
dismissed/disposed.
3. It would be open to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration
proceedings in accordance with law.
4. As far as limitation is concerned, the period from the invocation
of the arbitration till today be excluded in initiating fresh arbitration
proceedings.
5. Liberty to apply in the event there exists an express agreement in
writing in terms of proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “said Act”) waiving the ineligibility of the
sole arbitrator or the right to object under Section 12(5) of the said Act.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
Nikita Gadgil 2/2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.