Bombay High Court
TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.versusKAMRAN ISMAIL GHODKE
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the execution proceedings are non est due to the lack of jurisdiction in the underlying arbitral award and granted leave to withdraw the applications.
Summary
Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. filed execution proceedings against Kamran Ismail Ghodke. The Court noted that the Supreme Court in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airport Authority of India (Civil Appeals Nos. 37‑38 of 2026) held that an arbitral award is void ab initio if the arbitrator was unilaterally appointed, rendering any decree based on it without jurisdiction. Consequently, the execution proceedings were deemed non est. The applicant sought leave to withdraw the applications, which the Court granted, allowing the parties to start fresh arbitration if desired and excluding the limitation period for any new proceedings. All pending applications were ordered disposed of as withdrawn.
Issues considered
- Whether execution proceedings can continue when the underlying arbitral award is set aside for lack of jurisdiction due to unilateral appointment of the arbitrator.
- Whether a decree passed by a court lacking jurisdiction is void ab initio, rendering execution proceedings non est.
- Whether the limitation period is excluded for fresh arbitration proceedings initiated after withdrawal.
Subjects
- arbitration
- arbitral award
- jurisdiction
- execution of decree
- limitation period
- withdrawal of application
- non est
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
Digitally signed
by MAYUR
MAYUR KONDIRAM
KONDIRAM ADANE
ADANE Date:
2026.08.21
17:38:28 +0530
509-EXA-2304-2025 (OS).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 2304 OF 2025
WITH
NOTICE NO.900 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2242 OF 2023
Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. ...Applicant
Versus
Kamran Ismail Ghodke ...Respondent
__________
Adv. Bijal Gogri, i/b O M Gujar Law Chambers, for the Applicant.
__________
CORAM : ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATE : 21st AUGUST 2026
P.C.:
1. Not on board. Taken on board in terms of the praecipe dated 21
August 2026.
2. Heard Ms. Gogri, learned counsel for the Applicant in the
proceedings. From the record, it appears that the proceedings are covered
by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhadra International
(India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Airport Authority of India , Civil Appeal
Nos. 37-38 of 2026. The Supreme Court has held therein that an arbitral
award can be set aside as being void ab initio on the ground that the
arbitrator was unilaterally appointed.
3. According to the Supreme Court, a decree passed by a Court
Mayur Page 1 of 2
509-EXA-2304-2025 (OS).doc
without jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter. Any decision passed by
a Court lacking jurisdiction would be coram non judice, since a Court
cannot confer jurisdiction upon itself. No act of the parties can cure an
inherent lack of jurisdiction. In view thereof, all the proceedings, including
the execution proceedings, are rendered non est. The issue therefore is no
longer res integra.
4. In light of the above, learned counsel for the Applicant seeks leave
to withdraw the present Applications.
5. Leave is granted accordingly to withdraw the said proceedings.
6. However, it would be open to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration
proceedings, if necessary, in accordance with law.
7. As far as the issue of limitation is concerned, the period
commencing from the date of invocation of arbitration until the date of
this order shall stand excluded, in the event fresh proceedings are initiated
by the parties.
8. With the above observations and directions, the Application stand
Disposed of as withdrawn.
9. Consequently, the Interim Applications, if any, also stand Disposed
of accordingly.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]
Mayur Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.