Section 11 Arbitration Act: Why Supreme Court Chose Same Arbitrator For Two Contract Disputes

The Supreme Court recently modified a Delhi High Court order and directed that a sole arbitrator examine disputes arising under two separate optical fiber cable contracts, namely the Mahanet Agreement and the T-Fiber Agreement.

A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran passed the order on a civil appeal filed by M/s STL Networks Limited, without going into the merits of the dispute.

Why did the dispute reach the Supreme Court?

The matter concerned two contracts for optical fiber cable services under two separate projects, called the Mahanet Agreement and the T-Fiber Agreement.

Caspian India Engicon Pvt Ltd had initiated arbitration proceedings under the Mahanet Agreement before the Delhi High Court. On September 16, 2025, the high court appointed Saumya Tandon as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute.

Disputes subsequently arose under the T-Fiber Agreement as well. This led to a separate application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Delhi High Court, which appointed another arbitrator to deal with the dispute.

Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides the legal framework and procedure for the appointment of arbitrators when parties fail to reach a mutual agreement or when an agreed appointment mechanism breaks down.

Why did STL Networks seek the same arbitrator for both agreements?

STL Networks contended that it had a material recovery claim under the T-Fiber Agreement, which it was entitled to raise as a cross-project set-off against the amounts payable under the Mahanet Agreement.

According to the appellant, the claim under the T-Fiber Agreement was more than double the claim under the Mahanet Agreement.

The company therefore sought to have the disputes under both agreements considered by the same arbitrator.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court said that it would not go into the merits of the dispute but considered it appropriate for the arbitration proceedings to be conducted by the same arbitrator.

"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," the Bench said.

Accordingly, Court directed that Saumya Tandon, who was appointed as the sole arbitrator on September 16, 2025, would also act as the arbitrator in the dispute arising under the T-Fiber Agreement.

The Supreme Court modified the Delhi High Court's order to this extent and clarified that the parties would be entitled to raise all their contentions before the arbitrator.

The Bench also made it clear that its order should not be understood as deciding the merits of STL Networks' cross-project set-off claim or the quantum of claims under the two separate agreements.

"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," the Bench clarified.

Case Title: M/s STL Networks Limited Vs Casplan India Engicon Pvt Ltd

Bench: Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran

Date of Judgment: September 07, 2026