![Sole Arbitrator Appointed, Section 9 Order and High Court Stay Set Aside, Interim Relief Left to Section 17: Supreme Court in Kinetic Green Energy v. Saera Electric Auto [2026 INSC 1057]](/assets/images/article-corporate.svg)
Quick Answer: On the joint request of both sides, the Supreme Court appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice R.V. Raveendran as sole Arbitrator in the dispute between Kinetic Green Energy and Saera Electric Auto over their 2025 manufacturing, supply and IP agreements. It set aside / modified the Section 9 interim order of the Bengaluru Commercial Court and the Karnataka High Court's stay, and in the meantime barred Saera from launching or manufacturing the vehicles described in the agreement until the Arbitrator decides a Section 17 application.
In Kinetic Green Energy and Power Solutions Limited v. Saera Electric Auto Limited (2026 INSC 1057), the Supreme Court, at the joint request of the parties, appointed Justice R.V. Raveendran, former Judge of the Supreme Court, as the sole Arbitrator to decide disputes under three agreements dated 26 August 2025, and left the parties free to seek interim measures from the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (paras 6–8). A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi modified the Karnataka High Court's interim direction so that the respondent will not launch or manufacture the vehicles described in Annexures A and B of the agreement until the Section 17 application is decided, and set aside / modified the orders of the Commercial Court and the High Court (paras 8–9).
Status: Commercial Court, Bengaluru order dated 06.08.2026 in Com. A.A. No. 279 of 2026 and Karnataka High Court order dated 20.08.2026 in COMAP No. 396 of 2026 set aside / modified; sole Arbitrator appointed; appeal disposed of (paras 7–10).
Headnote: Sole Arbitrator Appointed, Interim Relief Left to Section 17
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 9, 17 and 37 – Interim measures by court – Stay by appellate court at first hearing – Manufacturing Agreement, Supply and Distribution Agreement and Intellectual Property Agreement – Exclusivity and non-compete – Appointment of sole Arbitrator with consent of parties – Modification of interim direction pending Section 17 application.
Held: (i) The Commercial Court had found a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in favour of the appellant and restrained the respondent from manufacturing and selling Mayuri branded electric three-wheelers, for three months or until the arbitral tribunal was constituted (para 4).
(ii) The High Court, at the first hearing of the Section 37 appeal, stayed that order, while directing the respondent not to launch any new vehicle and to maintain accounts of auto-shaped vehicles (para 5).
(iii) As both parties jointly requested appointment of a sole Arbitrator, constituting an Arbitral Tribunal was the appropriate course; Justice R.V. Raveendran was requested to act as sole Arbitrator (paras 6–7).
(iv) The parties may seek interim measures before the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17; until orders are passed on that application, the respondent will not launch or manufacture the vehicles described in Annexures A and B of the agreement read with Clause 1.1 (para 8).
(v) The Arbitrator will decide the Section 17 application uninfluenced by the observations in the impugned orders (para 8).
(paras 4–10)
Case Details: Kinetic Green Energy v. Saera Electric Auto (2026 INSC 1057)
Final Outcome: Sole Arbitrator appointed with consent; Commercial Court's Section 9 order and High Court's stay order set aside / modified; interim restraint on respondent pending Section 17 application; appeal disposed of.
Case: Kinetic Green Energy and Power Solutions Limited v. Saera Electric Auto Limited
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1057
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 13117 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 31162 of 2026)
Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) – Non-Reportable
Date of Decision: 24 September 2026
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi (the judgment does not name its author)
Relevant Acts & Sections: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 9, 17 and 37
Impugned Order: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Division Bench) – order dated 20.08.2026 in COMAP No. 396 of 2026, staying the Commercial Court, Bengaluru order dated 06.08.2026 in Com. A.A. No. 279 of 2026 (para 2)
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website)
Key Holdings of the Supreme Court
- With both parties requesting it, the Court appointed Justice R.V. Raveendran, former Judge of the Supreme Court, as sole Arbitrator, though the agreements originally contemplated a three-member tribunal (paras 6–7).
- Once the Arbitral Tribunal is constituted, the parties may apply under Section 17 for interim measures before it (para 8).
- The High Court's direction was modified: the respondent will not launch or manufacture the vehicles described in Annexures A and B of the agreement read with Clause 1.1, until the Section 17 application is decided (para 8).
- The rest of paragraph 12 of the High Court's order remains undisturbed (para 8).
- The Arbitrator will decide the Section 17 application uninfluenced by observations in the impugned orders (para 8).
- The Commercial Court's Section 9 order and the High Court's stay order are set aside / modified, and the High Court will consign the records of COMAP No. 396/2026 to file (para 9).
Brief Facts of the Case
On 26 August 2025, the parties executed a Manufacturing Agreement, a Supply and Distribution Agreement and an Intellectual Property Agreement. Under the Manufacturing Agreement, the respondent was to exclusively manufacture vehicles for the appellant to agreed specifications, with exclusivity and non-compete obligations and a 20-year term (para 2).
A dispute arose over the respondent's manufacture and sale of vehicles under the Mayuri brand, including Mayuri Rattan. The appellant said these fell within the exclusivity and non-compete obligations; the respondent said Mayuri was a pre-existing business, that "Vehicles" was narrowly defined, and that the arrangement had not really commenced (para 3).
The appellant approached the Commercial Court, Bengaluru under Section 9. On 06.08.2026 the Commercial Court found a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, and restrained the respondent from launching new similar vehicles and from manufacturing and selling the existing Mayuri auto-shaped electric three-wheelers, for three months or until the tribunal was constituted (para 4).
In the respondent's Section 37 appeal, the Karnataka High Court on 20.08.2026, at the first hearing, noted that the joint venture had not "taken off" and that some models had been made since 2023, and stayed the Commercial Court's order, while directing that no new vehicle be launched and accounts be maintained (para 5).
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the High Court was justified in staying, at the first hearing, the Commercial Court's Section 9 interim order (paras 2, 5).
- What interim arrangement should operate once the parties agreed to the appointment of a sole Arbitrator (paras 6–8).
Court's Findings and Reasoning
Joint request for a sole Arbitrator (para 6): At the hearing, Senior Advocates for both sides jointly asked the Court to appoint a sole Arbitrator for disputes under the three agreements. Though a three-member tribunal was originally contemplated, the parties agreed to a sole arbitrator and suggested Justice R.V. Raveendran.
Tribunal constituted (para 7): The Court considered constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal to be the appropriate course at that stage and requested Justice R.V. Raveendran to act as sole Arbitrator.
Interim arrangement pending Section 17 (para 8): The parties were given liberty to apply under Section 17. The High Court's direction that the appellant "will not launch any new vehicle" was substituted with a direction that the respondent will not launch or manufacture the vehicles described in Annexures A and B of the agreement read with Clause 1.1, operative until orders on the Section 17 application.
Earlier orders set aside / modified (para 9): The Commercial Court's order dated 06.08.2026 and the High Court's order dated 20.08.2026 were set aside / modified, and the High Court was told to consign the records of the Section 37 appeal to file.
Final Outcome and Directions
- Justice R.V. Raveendran, former Judge of the Supreme Court, appointed as sole Arbitrator; parties to appear before him on the date notified by the Tribunal (para 7).
- Parties at liberty to file a Section 17 application before the Arbitral Tribunal (para 8).
- Until orders on that application, the respondent will not launch or manufacture the vehicles described in Annexures A and B of the agreement read with Clause 1.1 (para 8).
- The Arbitrator to decide the Section 17 application uninfluenced by observations in the impugned orders (para 8).
- Orders of the Commercial Court, Bengaluru and the Karnataka High Court set aside / modified; appeal disposed of (paras 9–10).
Legal Principle Laid Down
Where parties to a commercial contract jointly agree to the appointment of a sole arbitrator, the Supreme Court may constitute the Arbitral Tribunal, set aside or modify the competing Section 9 and Section 37 interim orders, and leave interim relief to the Tribunal under Section 17, while putting in place a limited interim restraint that operates until the Tribunal decides the Section 17 application, uninfluenced by the earlier court observations.
Precedents Relied Upon
- No precedent is cited in the judgment.
Important Paragraphs of the Judgment
Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.
Para 4: "The interim measures were expressly made operative for three months or until constitution of the arbitral tribunal, whichever was earlier."
Para 5: "At the first hearing, the High Court recorded that the arrangement between the parties was in the nature of a joint venture, that the joint venture had not "taken off", and that there did not appear to be any tangible consideration which had flowed pursuant to the agreement."
Para 6: "At the time of hearing, the learned Senior Advocates appearing for the parties, in unison, requested this Court to appoint a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising between them in relation to the three agreements."
Para 7: "Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, we are of the opinion that the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate the disputes between the parties would be the appropriate course of action at this stage."
Para 8: "It is made clear that the remaining portion of the order in paragraph No.12 remains undisturbed and learned Arbitrator would examine the application filed under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 being uninfluenced by the observations made under the impugned orders."
Practical Impact of the Ruling
- For the parties: The dispute now goes to a sole Arbitrator, and interim relief will be decided afresh under Section 17 (paras 7–8).
- For the respondent: Until the Section 17 application is decided, it cannot launch or manufacture the vehicles described in Annexures A and B of the agreement (para 8).
- For commercial litigants: Agreeing to a sole arbitrator before the Supreme Court can quickly end competing Section 9 and Section 37 litigation (paras 6–9).
- For arbitrators: Interim-relief applications must be decided on their own merits, uninfluenced by observations in earlier court orders (para 8).
FAQs on the Kinetic Green – Saera Arbitration Order
1. What did the Supreme Court decide in Kinetic Green Energy v. Saera Electric Auto?
It appointed Justice R.V. Raveendran as sole Arbitrator at the parties' joint request, set aside / modified the Commercial Court and High Court orders, and left interim relief to the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 (paras 6–9).
2. What was the dispute about?
Whether the respondent's Mayuri branded electric three-wheelers, including Mayuri Rattan, fell within the exclusivity and non-compete obligations of the 2025 Manufacturing Agreement (paras 2–3).
3. What interim protection operates now?
The respondent will not launch or manufacture the vehicles described in Annexures A and B of the agreement read with Clause 1.1, until orders are passed on the Section 17 application (para 8).
4. Why a sole arbitrator instead of three?
Although a three-member tribunal was originally contemplated, both parties agreed before the Court that a sole arbitrator could be appointed (para 6).
5. Will the earlier court observations bind the Arbitrator?
No. The Arbitrator is to examine the Section 17 application uninfluenced by the observations in the impugned orders (para 8).
Keywords: 2026 INSC 1057, Kinetic Green Energy v. Saera Electric Auto, Section 9 Arbitration Act, Section 17 interim measures, Section 37 appeal, sole arbitrator appointed, Justice R.V. Raveendran, Mayuri Rattan, exclusivity non-compete, manufacturing agreement, electric three-wheeler, Supreme Court non-reportable judgment
Related on LegalTaxGuru
Download Judgment PDF – Kinetic Green Energy v. Saera Electric Auto
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).