A Mumbai redevelopment arbitration reached the Supreme Court over what a replacement arbitrator would inherit. The Bombay High Court had appointed a substitute but also treated proceedings on seven dates as invalid because they occurred during an insolvency moratorium.
On 4 February 2026, in Ankhim Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Zaveri Construction Pvt. Ltd., 2026 INSC 137, the Supreme Court set aside that part of the order. The substitution could proceed without the High Court using the appointment application to nullify earlier proceedings. This is an explainer of that February ruling, rather than a new judgment delivered today.
How the redevelopment dispute reached court
The parties had formed Anmol Alliance for an SRA redevelopment project in Andheri, Mumbai. After disputes arose, the Bombay High Court recorded consent terms in July 2019 and appointed a sole arbitrator. Zaveri subsequently entered the corporate insolvency resolution process.
The arbitration became entangled with objections over the moratorium and applications concerning permission to transact in flats. After the earlier tribunal terminated proceedings in October 2023, the appellants sought a replacement and an extension of time. The High Court appointed Justice R.M. Savant but declared proceedings on seven dates between March and August 2022 a nullity.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 15(2). A substitution application did not give it an alternative route to set aside jurisdictional, interim and procedural orders. The relevant reasoning appears in paragraphs 35–44 of the judgment.
What carries forward, and what may be heard again
Section 15 separates three questions. Subsection (2) governs the replacement appointment. Subsection (3) deals with repeating hearings. Subsection (4) protects earlier orders from becoming invalid solely because the tribunal’s composition changes, unless the parties agree otherwise.
That leaves room for a rehearing. As the Court explains in paragraphs 30–31, the parties can agree whether hearings should be repeated. If they do not reach agreement, the tribunal decides. Their agreement can be reached before or after substitution.
A claim that replacement means a compulsory restart would therefore be too broad. So would a promise that no hearing can ever be repeated. For a construction team, the practical question is which parts of the record remain usable and which issues the replacement tribunal needs to hear.
The insolvency issue still requires care
The decision concerns the limits of the court’s power in the substitution proceeding. It should not be read as general permission to continue proceedings against a corporate debtor during an IBC moratorium. Parties still need to address the applicable insolvency restrictions and use the proper procedural route for any challenge.
The Court also used Article 142 to validate the transactions before it, referring to the passage of time and homebuyer rights. That was relief in this case. It does not automatically validate transactions in another redevelopment dispute. Paragraphs 46–48 set out the operative directions.
Preparing the record for a replacement
The practical work is to make the existing case understandable to the new arbitrator. Project correspondence, drawings, payment records and expert material should be indexed against the pleadings and orders in which they were used. Counsel should be able to distinguish a document already admitted from material that was merely filed.
A handover record can also identify completed hearings, pending applications, outstanding evidence and disputed procedural points. If a party seeks to repeat a hearing, it should explain what needs to be heard again and why. A change of arbitrator alone does not answer that question.
For the commercial team, keep the appointment timetable, award deadline and any extension application visible alongside the dispute programme. Record separately any insolvency order affecting the parties or proposed transactions. Before the next hearing, agree with counsel which decisions the replacement tribunal must make and which parts of the existing record support them.
