Bombay High Court
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.versusARHAMM INFOSYS AND 3 ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- WITHDRAWN
- Bench
- RAJESH S PATIL
Holding
The arbitral award is declared non‑existent in law, void‑ab‑initio, and therefore non‑executable.
Summary
The execution proceedings filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. were based on an arbitral award whose arbitrator had been appointed unilaterally by one party. The bank sought to withdraw the execution application and obtain liberty to commence fresh arbitration. The Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airport Authority of India (Civil Appeal No. 37‑38 of 2026) and the earlier judgment in L&T Finance Ltd. v. Sangeeta Bhansali, held that an award can be set aside at the execution stage if the arbitrator’s appointment is void‑ab‑initio. Consequently, the award was declared non‑existent in law, non‑executable and void‑ab‑initio. The execution application was disposed of as withdrawn, and the parties were permitted to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, with the period of the earlier arbitration excluded for limitation purposes.
Issues considered
- Whether an arbitral award can be set aside as void‑ab‑initio at the execution stage on the ground of unilateral appointment of the arbitrator.
- Whether the execution application should be withdrawn and the parties allowed to commence fresh arbitration proceedings.
Subjects
- Arbitration
- Arbitral award
- Unilateral appointment
- Void ab initio
- Execution of award
- Fresh arbitration
- Limitation period
Judgment
Vivekanand
1/2
30-IA-396-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 396 OF 2022
IN
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 1471/2018
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. ….. APPLICANT
VERSUS
ARHAMM INFOSYS AND 3 ORS. ….. RESPONDENTS
Ms. Bijal Gogri i/by O M Gujar Law Chambers, Advocate for the
Applicant.
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 17th FEBRUARY, 2026
P.C. :-
1) Ms. Gogri, learned counsel appearing for the claimant
submits that the execution proceedings arise out of an Arbitral Award,
where the Arbitrator’s appointment was unilateral. Hence, she on
instructions of her client seeks leave to withdraw the present
execution application, with liberty to initiate fresh arbitration
proceedings.
2) I have taken a view in the judgment of L & T Finance Ltd.
vs. Sangeeta Bhansali & Anr. in Commercial Execution Application (L)
No. 5277 of 2022, considering the latest judgment of the Supreme
Vivekanand
2/2
30-IA-396-2022.doc
Court decided on 5 January, 2026, in the matter of Bhadra
International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Airport Authority of
India, Civil Appeal No. 37-38 of 2026, wherein it has been held that
even at the stage of execution, an arbitral award can be set aside
being void-ab-initio on the grounds that the appointment of the
arbitrator was unilateral.
3) Leave and liberty as prayed for, is granted.
3.1) The Arbitral Award which is subject matter of the present
proceedings is hereby declared to be non-est in law, non-executable
and void-ab-initio.
4) Execution Application stands disposed of as withdrawn.
5) In sequel, the Interim Applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
6) It shall be open for the parties to initiate fresh arbitration
proceedings in accordance with law.
7) As far as limitation is concerned, the period from the
invocation of the arbitration till today shall stand excluded for the
purpose of initiating fresh arbitration proceedings.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.