✦ Bombay High Court

Judgment · High Court

ABHAY AHUJA2 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Set aside

Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respective arbitral awards stand set aside

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, in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respective…

Judgment

Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b O. M. Gujar Law Chambers for the Applicant in Sr. Nos. 902, 909, 913, 962 to 965, 1026 to 1029, 1031 to 1033, 1047, 1049, 1050, 1054 to 1056, 1059, 1060, 1061, 1068, 1092, 1096, 1149, 1150. Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b GNP Legal for the Applicant in Sr. Nos. 975, 976, 1007, 1029, 1030. Ms. Shrutika Mane with Ms. Reet Jain i/b S. I. Joshi & Co. for the Applicant in Sr. Nos. 992, 1053 & 1058. Mr. Pravin Singh i/b Mr. Ashok Singh for the Applicant in Sr. No. 1062. Mr. Narayan R. Awate with Ms. Seema Phadatare for the Applicant in Sr.Nos. 1148, 935, 936, 937, 1046, 1070, 1136, 1137, 1143, 1144, 1146, 1147. PC:- CORAM DATE : : ABHAY AHUJA, J. 4th MAY, 2026

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. 1 2026 SCC Online SC 7 Nikita Gadgil 1/2 902 to 1151.doc

Operative part

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, in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respective arbitral awards stand set aside and the Commercial Execution Applications / Execution Applications, and the connected Interim Applications as well as the Chamber Summons, if any, accordingly stand 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 YOGESH GADGIL Digitally signed by NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL 16:41:55 +0530 Nikita Gadgil 2/2

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respective arbitral awards stand set aside

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 known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments