Supreme Court Appoints Justice R V Raveendran As Sole Arbitrator In Kinetic Green-Saera E-Rickshaw Dispute

The Supreme Court has appointed former top court judge Justice R V Raveendran as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate a dispute between Kinetic Green Energy and Power Solutions Limited and Saera Electric Auto Limited over agreements relating to the manufacturing, supply, distribution and intellectual property of the Mayuri brand of e-rickshaws.

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi passed the order after counsel appearing for both companies submitted that Justice Raveendran may be appointed as the sole arbitrator.

What is the dispute between the two e-rickshaw companies?

The dispute concerns a manufacturing agreement dated August 26, 2025, under which Saera Electric Auto Limited was to exclusively manufacture vehicles for Kinetic Green Energy and Power Solutions Limited in accordance with agreed specifications.

The agreement contained provisions relating to exclusivity and non-compete obligations. It prescribed a contractual term of 20 years and contemplated subsequent purchase orders and commencement of sales at a later stage.

A dispute subsequently arose over the manufacture and sale by Saera of vehicles under the Mayuri brand, including Mayuri Rattan, as well as certain vehicles proposed to be introduced by it.

Kinetic's case was that the vehicles in question fell within the contractual field of exclusivity and non-compete obligations. It contended that their continued manufacture, marketing and sale would defeat the protection which the agreements were intended to secure.

Saera, on the other hand, contended that its Mayuri vehicles constituted a pre-existing business. It argued that the contractual definition of "vehicles" was narrower than what was being asserted by Kinetic and that the agreements did not operate in the manner suggested by Kinetic.

It was also contended that the contemplated commercial arrangement had not really commenced, as there had been no purchase order for manufacture and no substantial monetary consideration had passed between the parties.

Why did Kinetic approach commercial court?

Against this background, Kinetic approached the commercial court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking interim protection.

The commercial court directed, among other things, that Saera be restrained from taking steps towards the launch, manufacture, marketing, supply, distribution or sale of new vehicles or products similar to the vehicles contemplated under the manufacturing agreement.

It also restrained Saera from continuing or taking further steps towards the manufacture, marketing, distribution and sale of existing Mayuri-branded auto-shaped three-wheeler electric vehicles, including Mayuri Rattan L5 Auto and similar variants.

The interim measures were to remain operative for three months or until the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, whichever was earlier.

What did Karnataka High Court hold?

Saera challenged the commercial court's order before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru.

The appeal arose from an order dated August 20, 2026, by the high court's division bench, which, at the first hearing, stayed the August 6, 2026 order passed by the commercial court.

The high court recorded that the arrangement between the parties was in the nature of a joint venture and that the joint venture had not "taken off". It also observed that there did not appear to be any tangible consideration which had flowed pursuant to the agreement.

The high court further noticed that Saera had been manufacturing certain models for several years, some of which had been launched as early as 2023.

On this reasoning, the high court stayed the commercial court's order until the next date of hearing.

At the same time, it directed that Saera would not launch any new vehicle and would maintain accounts of all "auto-shaped vehicles" manufactured by it, along with their models.

Why did Supreme Court appoint a sole arbitrator?

Having heard the counsels appearing for both parties, the Supreme Court held that constitution of an arbitral tribunal to adjudicate the disputes would be the appropriate course of action at this stage.

"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. Accordingly, we request Justice Raveendran, to kindly act as the sole arbitrator in the matter," the Bench said.

The Supreme Court granted the parties liberty to file the necessary application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the arbitral tribunal, seeking appropriate interim measures as permissible in law.

Court also modified the high court's order, which had provided that "the appellant will not launch any new vehicle".

Instead, the Supreme Court directed that Saera "will not launch or manufacture" the vehicles described in Annexures A and B of the agreement dated August 26, 2026, read with Clause 1.1 concerning specifications and vehicles indicated therein.

This direction will remain operative until orders are passed on the application that may be filed under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Supreme Court made it clear that the remaining portion of the high court's order would remain undisturbed.

It further directed that the arbitrator would examine any application filed under Section 17 of the Act independently and without being influenced by the observations made in the orders under challenge.

The Supreme Court accordingly set aside and modified the orders passed by the commercial court and the high court while disposing of the appeal.

Case Title: Kinetic Green Energy And Power Solutions Limited Vs Saera Electric Auto Limited

Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi 

Date of Judgment: September 24, 2026