Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Set aside
respective arbitral awards stand set aside and the Commercial
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Since in all these matters it has been found by the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court that the appointment of the sole arbitrator has been unilateral, the said applications, in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme…
Judgment
Mr. Suraj Gupta i/b. S.G. Legal & Associates for Applicant/Claimant in Sr. Nos. 56, 57, 58 , 63, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 109, 110, 119, 120, 121, 125, 126, 130, 133, 134, 135, 140, 141, 142, 144, 168, 169, 170, 174, 175, 178. None present in other matters. CORAM DATE : : ABHAY AHUJA, J. 1st APRIL, 2026 P.C. :
#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 India1 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 Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court that the appointment of the 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 1 2026 SCC Online SC 7 Nikita Gadgil 1/2 as the Chamber Summons, if any, stand accordingly 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 YOGESH GADGIL Digitally signed by NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL 19:42:56 +0530 Nikita Gadgil 2/2
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: respective arbitral awards stand set aside and the Commercial
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 12(5).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.