![First-Appointed Arbitrator to Decide Dispute Under Second Contract Too: Supreme Court in STL Networks Ltd. v. Caspian India Engicon Pvt. Ltd. [2026 INSC 969]](/assets/images/article-corporate.svg)
![First-Appointed Arbitrator to Decide Dispute Under Second Contract Too: Supreme Court in STL Networks Ltd. v. Caspian India Engicon Pvt. Ltd. [2026 INSC 969]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/d/1XfwLniIjT67YnfZP9I5Q2BcRtVUJAhhX)
Quick Answer: The same parties had disputes under two separate optical fibre cable contracts, and the Delhi High Court appointed a different arbitrator for the second contract. Without going into the merits, the Supreme Court directed that the sole arbitrator first appointed under the other contract should decide the second dispute too, and modified the Section 11 order to that extent.
In M/s STL Networks Limited v. Caspian India Engicon Pvt. Ltd. (2026 INSC 969), a Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that, "in the fitness of things", the arbitration under the T-Fiber Agreement should be carried on by the arbitrator first appointed under the Mahanet Agreement, keeping all contentions open (paras 4–5).
Status: Civil appeal allowed; High Court's Section 11 order modified; first-appointed sole arbitrator to decide both disputes (paras 4–6).
Headnote: Same Arbitrator for Disputes Under Two Related Contracts
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11 – Appointment of arbitrator – Two agreements between the same parties – Cross-project set-off claim – Appointment of the first-appointed arbitrator for the second dispute – Merits left open.
Held: (i) Where disputes between the same parties arise under two agreements and a cross-project set-off is pleaded, the arbitration under the second agreement should, in the fitness of things, be carried on by the arbitrator first appointed under the other agreement (paras 3–4).
(ii) The order expresses no view on the merits of the cross-project set-off or the quantum of claims, and all contentions remain open before the arbitrator (para 5).
(paras 2–6)
Case Details: STL Networks Ltd. v. Caspian India Engicon Pvt. Ltd. (2026 INSC 969)
Final Outcome: Appeal allowed; impugned Section 11 order modified; Ms. Saumya Tandon to act as sole arbitrator in the T-Fiber dispute as well.
Case: M/s STL Networks Limited v. Caspian India Engicon Pvt. Ltd.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 969
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 12517 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 28903 of 2026)
Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) – Non-Reportable
Date of Decision: 7 September 2026
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran (order; no named author)
Relevant Acts & Sections: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11
Impugned Order: Order of the High Court of Delhi on a Section 11 application under the T-Fiber Agreement, appointing a separate arbitrator (para 2)
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website)
Key Holdings of the Supreme Court
- The arbitration under the T-Fiber Agreement is to be carried on by the arbitrator first appointed under the Mahanet Agreement (para 4).
- The High Court's Section 11 order was modified only to that extent (para 5).
- The parties may raise all contentions before the arbitrator; the Court did not decide the cross-project set-off or the quantum of claims (para 5).
Brief Facts of the Case
The parties had two contracts for optical fibre cable services in two distinct projects: the Mahanet Agreement and the T-Fiber Agreement. On the respondent's application under the Mahanet Agreement, the Delhi High Court appointed Ms. Saumya Tandon as sole arbitrator on 16.09.2025 (para 2).
Disputes then arose under the T-Fiber Agreement, and on a Section 11 application the High Court appointed another arbitrator. That order was challenged (para 2). The appellant contended that it had a material recovery claim under the T-Fiber Agreement, more than double the claim under the Mahanet Agreement, which it was entitled to set off across the projects (para 3).
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the dispute under the T-Fiber Agreement should go to a separate arbitrator or to the arbitrator already appointed under the Mahanet Agreement (para 4).
Court's Findings and Reasoning
Same arbitrator (para 4): Declining to go into the merits, the Court held that in the fitness of things the arbitration should be carried on by the same arbitrator, namely the first appointed one, and directed that Ms. Saumya Tandon act as arbitrator in this dispute too.
Merits left open (para 5): The Court clarified that it had only recorded the appellant's argument and had not held anything on the cross-project set-off or the quantum of claims under the two agreements.
Final Outcome and Directions
- Ms. Saumya Tandon, appointed on 16.09.2025, to be the sole arbitrator in the T-Fiber dispute as well (para 4).
- Impugned order modified to that extent; all contentions kept open (para 5).
- Appeal allowed; pending applications rejected (paras 6–7).
Legal Principle Laid Down
When connected disputes between the same parties under separate agreements, including a claimed cross-contract set-off, are referred to arbitration, the Supreme Court may direct that the arbitrator first appointed decide both disputes, while leaving the merits open (paras 3–5).
Precedents Relied Upon
- No precedent is cited in the order.
Important Paragraphs of the Judgment
Verbatim extracts from the order. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.
Para 4: "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."
Para 4: "Hence, Ms. Saumya Tandon, appointed as a Sole Arbitrator on 16.09.2025, shall be the Arbitrator in the present dispute also."
Para 5: "The parties shall be entitled to raise all contentions before the Arbitrator"
Para 5: "We have just recorded the argument raised by the appellant in the appeal."
Practical Impact of the Ruling
- For parties with multiple contracts: Where claims under one contract are pleaded as a set-off against another, seek appointment of the same arbitrator to avoid parallel proceedings.
- For lawyers: In a Section 11 application, point out any arbitrator already appointed in a connected dispute between the same parties.
- For arbitrators: The set-off and quantum questions remain fully open for decision on merits.
FAQs on Appointment of the Same Arbitrator for Connected Contracts
1. What did the Supreme Court decide in STL Networks v. Caspian India Engicon?
It directed that the sole arbitrator first appointed under the Mahanet Agreement also decide the dispute under the T-Fiber Agreement (para 4).
2. Why did the appellant want one arbitrator?
It claimed a recovery under the T-Fiber Agreement, more than double the Mahanet claim, which it sought to set off across the two projects (para 3).
3. Did the Court decide whether the set-off is valid?
No. It expressly did not decide the cross-project set-off or the quantum of claims (para 5).
4. What happened to the High Court's Section 11 order?
It was modified only to the extent of replacing the separately appointed arbitrator with the first-appointed sole arbitrator (paras 4–5).
5. Can the parties still raise all their objections?
Yes. All contentions may be raised before the arbitrator (para 5).
Keywords: 2026 INSC 969, STL Networks v. Caspian India Engicon, Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, appointment of arbitrator, same arbitrator for two contracts, cross-project set-off, Mahanet Agreement, T-Fiber Agreement, Supreme Court non-reportable judgment
Related on LegalTaxGuru
Download Judgment PDF – STL Networks Ltd. v. Caspian India Engicon Pvt. Ltd.
Judgment PDF: 2026 INSC 969 – STL Networks Ltd. v. Caspian India Engicon Pvt. Ltd. (C.A. No. 12517 of 2026) – Download Judgment PDF
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).