Ankhim Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Zaveri Construction Pvt. Ltd. 2026 INSC 137 - S.15 Arbitration Act
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 15(2) - it would be impermissible for a court acting under Section 15(2) to adopt a procedure whereby it exercises jurisdiction barred to it by the Act. (Para 41) High Court is not empowered to nullify orders which it had no jurisdiction to consider. (Para 42) Where the Act provides procedures for assailing orders, or prohibits such orders of a Tribunal from being assailed, then no alternate procedure can be adopted by a court whose jurisdiction derives from a provision of the Act itself. (Para 40) [Context: SC held that while substituting an arbitrator under Section 15(2),ct, the Bombay High Court exceeded its limited jurisdiction by declaring arbitral proceedings conducted between 17.03.2022 and 25.08.2022 as a nullity on the ground of moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. ]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 15 - Section 15(3) provides the course of action after the arbitrator has been replaced under sub-section (2). The essential ingredients of the provision are thus:- i. Any hearing previously held may be repeated; ii. The repetition of the hearing is at the discretion of the arbitral tribunal; iii. However, such repetition of the hearing is subject to the agreement between the parties; If the parties agree for repetition of hearing, the term “may” transforms into “shall”. Whereas, if the parties agree for non-repetition of hearing, the term “may” transforms into “shall not”. In case the parties fail to arrive at a conclusion, the arbitral tribunal would decide whether the hearing already conducted before his substitution would be repeated - The parties can come to an agreement on the question of re-hearing either prior to the stage of substitution being reached or after the arbitrator has been substituted. (Para 31)
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 15 - Under Section 15(2), the appointment of the substitute Arbitrator must be in accordance with the original agreement or provision applicable to the appointment of the Arbitrator at the initial stage. (Para 32)
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11- It affords the Court with a very limited scope essentially requiring the Court only to make prima facie finding that an arbitration agreement exists. (Para 3
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 37- Section 37 provides for appeals against orders under Section 17 and also against orders accepting pleas under Section 16, though orders rejecting Section 16 applications are not subject to judicial interference under the Act. (Para 40)
Case Info
Case name: Ankhim Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Zaveri Construction Pvt. Ltd.Neutral citation: Not mentioned in the text (only case number given: Civil Appeal No. 779/2026, arising out of SLP (C) No. 11667/2024).
Coram:Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. PardiwalaHon’ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Judgment date: 4 February 2026 (as per the signed order and record of proceedings).
Case laws and citations referred:
- Yashwith Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Simplex Concrete Piles India Ltd. & Anr., (2006) 6 SCC 204
- Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re, (2024) 6 SCC 1
- Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2578
- Shailesh Dhairyawan v. Mohan Balkrishna Lulla, (2016) 3 SCC 619
- Official Trustee v. Sachindra Nath Chatterjee, 1968 SCC OnLine SC 103
- Pasl Wind Solutions (P) Ltd. v. GE Power Conversion (India) (P) Ltd., (2021) 7 SCC 1 : (2021) 3 SCC (Civ) 702
- Kandla Export Corpn. v. OCI Corpn., (2018) 14 SCC 715 : (2018) 4 SCC (Civ) 664
- Subal Paul v. Malina Paul, (2003) 10 SCC 361
- ACC Ltd. v. Global Cements Ltd. (citation referred in text but not fully set out)
- Union of India v. Pradeep Vinod Construction Company (citation referred but not fully set out)
Statutes / laws referred:
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
- Section 9
- Section 11
- Section 13
- Section 14
- Section 15 (especially sub-sections (2), (3), (4))
- Section 16
- Section 17
- Section 37
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC)
- Section 14 (moratorium; including sub-section (4))
- Section 23 (proviso to sub-section (1))
- Section 31(1)
- Section 33 (including Section 33(5))
- Section 34
- Constitution of India
- Article 136 (mentioned in extracted precedent Hindustan Construction Co. case)
- Article 142 (invoked to declare the flat transactions lawfully valid)
- (Referenced generally) Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – via “Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re”.
Brief summary (three sentences):The Supreme Court held that while substituting an arbitrator under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Bombay High Court exceeded its limited jurisdiction by declaring arbitral proceedings conducted between 17.03.2022 and 25.08.2022 as a nullity on the ground of moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. It ruled that a court acting under Section 15(2) cannot indirectly set aside orders under Sections 16 and 17 or restart the arbitration de novo, especially where the Act itself prescribes specific and limited avenues of challenge and envisages minimal judicial intervention. The Court therefore set aside that portion of the High Court’s order, affirmed continuation of the arbitration from its existing stage, and, invoking Article 142, declared the homebuyers’ transactions pursuant to the Section 17 orders to be lawfully valid.