The Supreme Court of India, comprising a bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, has ruled that where disputes arise across two separate contracts involving intertwined claims of cross-project set-off, the proceedings should be adjudicated by the same arbitrator. Modifying an order passed by the High Court of Delhi under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the apex court directed that the sole arbitrator originally appointed in the first contract dispute shall also act as the sole arbitrator for the dispute arising under the second contract.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces its origin to two distinct contracts entered into between the parties for optical fiber cable services across two separate projects, designated as the “Mahanet Agreement” and the “T-Fiber Agreement.”
The respondent, Caspian India Engicon Pvt. Ltd., initially invoked arbitration under the Mahanet Agreement before the High Court of Delhi. In those proceedings, Ms. Saumya Tandon was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator on September 16, 2025.
Subsequently, disputes also emerged between the parties concerning the T-Fiber Agreement. This led to the filing of an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the High Court of Delhi, wherein the High Court proceeded to appoint a different arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes under the T-Fiber Agreement. Aggrieved by this appointment, the appellant, M/s STL Networks Limited, approached the Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition.
Arguments of the Parties
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that it holds a material recovery claim arising under the T-Fiber Agreement. The appellant submitted that it is entitled to exercise this claim as a cross-project set-off against the amounts payable under the Mahanet Agreement.
It was further pointed out on behalf of the appellant that the quantum of its claim under the T-Fiber Agreement is more than double the claim raised under the Mahanet Agreement, necessitating that both matters be placed before the same arbitrator to ensure coherent adjudication.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court observed that without delving into the substantive merits of the claims, procedural coherence warranted that both arbitrations be handled by the arbitrator first appointed. The bench noted:
“We will not go into the merits of the matter, but in the fitness of things, we are of the opinion that the arbitration should be carried on by the very same Arbitrator; according to us, the first appointed Arbitrator. Hence, Ms. Saumya Tandon, appointed as a Sole Arbitrator on 16.09.2025, shall be the Arbitrator in the present dispute also.”
The Court, however, made it clear that it was not pronouncing upon the validity of the set-off claim, observing:
“The parties shall be entitled to raise all contentions before the Arbitrator, and we may not be taken as having held on the merits of the cross project set-off or the quantum of the claims made under the two separate agreements. We have just recorded the argument raised by the appellant in the appeal.”
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and modified the impugned order of the High Court of Delhi to the extent of substituting the arbitrator with Ms. Saumya Tandon. The Court clarified that all contentions remain open for the parties to urge before the sole arbitrator, and directed that any pending application(s) shall stand rejected.
Case Title: M/s STL Networks Limited v. Caspian India Engicon Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 12517 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 28903 of 2026)
Bench: Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date: September 07, 2026
