M/S Stl Networks Limited vs Caspian India Engicon Pvt. Ltd
- Neutral2026 INSC 969
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where disputes arising under two separate agreements between the same parties are referred to arbitration, and one agreement is already before an arbitrator, the second agreement should be referred to the same arbitrator rather than a different one, so that both disputes may be decided by a single adjudicator and the question of cross-project set-off between claims under the two agreements may be properly adjudicated.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Non-Reportable
2026 INSC 969 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 12517 of 2026
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.28903 of 2026)
M/s STL Networks Limited ..Appellant (s)
Versus
Caspian India Engicon Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent (s)
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. Two contracts; for optical fiber cable services across two distinct projects, called respectively, the Mahanet Agreement and T-Fiber Agreement. The respondent initiated arbitration under the Mahanet Agreement before the High Court of Delhi, wherein one Ms. Saumya Tandon was appointed as a Sole Arbitrator on 16.09.2025. Disputes arose with respect to the T-
Fiber Agreement also, resulting in an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the High Court of Delhi, which is impugned herein. Therein yet another Arbitrator was
VISHAL ANAND
3. The appellant’s contention is that there is a material recovery claim under the T-Fiber Agreement which is entitled to be exercised as a cross project set- off against the amounts payable under the Mahanet Agreement; the former being more than double the claim in the latter.
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. Hence, Ms. Saumya Tandon, appointed as a Sole Arbitrator on 16.09.2025, shall be the Arbitrator in the present dispute also.
5. The impugned order is modified to the above extent. The parties shall be entitled to raise all contentions before the Arbitrator, and 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.
6. The appeal is allowed.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand rejected.
.......…….……………………. J.
(J. B. PARDIWALA)
....……….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 07, 2026.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free