Bombay High Court
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.versusTIRUPATI BALAJI CORPORATION AND 3 ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- RAJESH S PATIL
Holding
The arbitral award is declared void ab initio and non‑executable due to unilateral appointment of the arbitrator.
Summary
The applicant, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., filed an execution application based on an arbitral award against the respondents, Tirupati Balaji Corporation & Ors. The applicant contended that the arbitrator had been appointed unilaterally, rendering the award void. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airport Authority of India (2026) and the earlier judgment in L&T Finance Ltd. v. Sangeeta Bhansali (2022), the Court held that an arbitral award can be set aside at the execution stage if the appointment of the arbitrator is unilateral. Consequently, the award was declared non-est in law, non‑executable and void ab initio. The Court granted leave to withdraw the present execution application, disposed of the interim applications, and allowed the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings, excluding the period already spent on the flawed arbitration from the limitation period.
Issues considered
- Whether an arbitral award can be set aside at the execution stage on the ground that the arbitrator was appointed unilaterally.
- Whether the execution application based on such an award should be dismissed.
- Effect of the void award on limitation period for initiating fresh arbitration.
Subjects
- Arbitration
- Arbitral award
- Unilateral appointment
- Void ab initio
- Execution proceedings
- Limitation period
- Fresh arbitration
Judgment
KVM
1/2
14 - EXA 273 OF 2019.doc
Digitally signed
by KANCHAN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KANCHAN VINOD
VINOD MAYEKAR
MAYEKAR Date:
2026.03.25
11:20:59 +0530 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 273/2019
ALONGWITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 282/2022
IN
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 273/2019
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD ….. APPLICANT
VS
TIRUPATI BALAJI CORPORATION & ORS. ….. RESPONDENTS
Adv. Manmohan Rao for the Applicant.
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 24 MARCH, 2026
P.C. :-
1) 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, he on instructions of
his 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
Court decided on 5 January, 2026, in the matter of Bhadra
International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Airport Authority of
KVM
2/2
14 - EXA 273 OF 2019.doc
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.