The Supreme Court has directed that disputes arising between M/s STL Networks Limited and Caspian India Engicon Pvt. Ltd. under two separate optical fibre cable service agreements be heard by the same arbitrator.
A Bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran passed the order on September 7, 2026, while allowing an appeal against an order of the Delhi High Court.
Background of the Case
The dispute concerns two contracts relating to optical fibre cable services, known as the Mahanet Agreement and the T-Fiber Agreement.
Caspian India Engicon had initiated arbitration proceedings under the Mahanet Agreement before the Delhi High Court, which appointed Ms. Saumya Tandon as the sole arbitrator on September 16, 2025.
A separate dispute later arose under the T-Fiber Agreement. In proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Delhi High Court appointed another arbitrator for that dispute.
STL Networks challenged that arrangement before the Supreme Court, arguing that it had a substantial recovery claim under the T-Fiber Agreement which it sought to raise as a cross-project set-off against amounts allegedly payable under the Mahanet Agreement. The company stated that the T-Fiber claim was more than twice the claim under the Mahanet Agreement.
Supreme Court's Observation
The Supreme Court did not examine the merits of the competing claims or decide whether the proposed cross-project set-off was legally maintainable.
The Bench considered it appropriate for both disputes to be handled by the arbitrator who had been appointed first.
"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."
Decision
The Court modified the Delhi High Court's order and directed that Ms. Saumya Tandon, who was appointed as sole arbitrator on September 16, 2025, would also act as arbitrator in the T-Fiber dispute.
The Supreme Court clarified that both sides would remain free to raise all their contentions before the arbitrator. It also made clear that its order should not be treated as a finding on the merits of the cross-project set-off or on the amount claimed under either agreement.
The appeal was accordingly allowed.
-300x169.webp)
