Case at a Glance
STL Networks and Caspian India Engicon had two contracts for optical fibre cable services on two different projects — the Mahanet Agreement and the T-Fiber Agreement. Arbitration under the Mahanet Agreement was already before a sole arbitrator appointed on 16 September 2025, but when a dispute arose under the T-Fiber Agreement, the Delhi High Court, on a Section 11 application, appointed a different arbitrator. STL argued that its T-Fiber recovery claim, more than double the Mahanet claim, should be set off across the projects. Without going into the merits, the Supreme Court directed that the same sole arbitrator decide the T-Fiber dispute as well and left all contentions open.
The parties had entered into two agreements for optical fibre cable services on distinct projects: the Mahanet Agreement and the T-Fiber Agreement. The respondent invoked arbitration under the Mahanet Agreement, and Ms. Saumya Tandon was appointed as sole arbitrator on 16 September 2025.
Disputes then arose under the T-Fiber Agreement, leading to an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Delhi High Court, which appointed a different arbitrator for that dispute. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that its material recovery claim under the T-Fiber Agreement should be allowed as a cross-project set-off against amounts payable under the Mahanet Agreement, pointing out that the T-Fiber claim was more than double the Mahanet claim.
The Key Question Before the Court
When a sole arbitrator is already hearing disputes under one of two related contracts between the same parties, should the dispute under the second contract go to a different arbitrator?
One Arbitrator, Contentions Kept Open
The Bench said it would not go into the merits. It held that “the arbitration should be carried on by the very same Arbitrator”, directing that the arbitrator already appointed under the Mahanet Agreement shall be the arbitrator in the T-Fiber dispute also, and modified the High Court’s order to that extent.
The Court was careful to add that “we may not be taken as having held on the merits of the cross project set-off”; the appellant’s argument was only recorded. “The parties shall be entitled to raise all contentions before the Arbitrator.” The appeal was allowed and pending applications were rejected.
What the Court Actually Held
- Ms. Saumya Tandon, appointed as sole arbitrator on 16 September 2025 under the Mahanet Agreement, shall also be the arbitrator in the T-Fiber dispute.
- The Delhi High Court’s Section 11 order was modified to that extent.
- The Court expressed no view on the merits of the cross-project set-off claim.
- All contentions are open before the arbitrator; the appeal was allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It shows the Court favouring a single arbitral forum for closely connected disputes between the same parties.
- It reduces the risk of conflicting awards where a set-off is claimed across contracts.
- It is a practical guide for parties with multiple related contracts and separate arbitration clauses.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Businesses
- Where related contracts with the same counterparty lead to separate disputes, consider asking for the same arbitrator to hear both.
- Cross-contract set-off claims are decided by the arbitrator on merits; this order does not decide them.
- Keep records linking the projects and claims to support consolidation requests.
For Counsel
- In a Section 11 application, point out any arbitrator already appointed between the same parties on a related contract.
- Cite this order for appointing the same arbitrator, noting it is a short, non-reportable decision.
- Preserve set-off arguments for the arbitral tribunal.
Key Takeaways
- Same sole arbitrator to hear disputes under both Mahanet and T-Fiber agreements.
- Delhi High Court’s separate appointment modified.
- No view expressed on cross-project set-off.
- All contentions left open before the arbitrator.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Supreme Court allow the cross-project set-off?
No. It expressly said it was not deciding the merits of the set-off; that is for the arbitrator.
Who will decide the T-Fiber dispute?
Ms. Saumya Tandon, the sole arbitrator appointed on 16 September 2025 under the Mahanet Agreement.
Which court made the first appointment for the T-Fiber dispute?
The Delhi High Court, on an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; its order was modified.
Conclusion
By sending both disputes to one arbitrator, the Court allowed the overlapping claims, including the disputed set-off, to be considered in a single forum without deciding them itself.
Practical takeaway: When seeking appointment of an arbitrator for a dispute linked to an ongoing arbitration between the same parties, ask the court to appoint the arbitrator already seized of the related dispute.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com