NLA Insights
14 September 2026
In complex commercial transactions, parties often enter into multiple agreements in relation to interconnected projects, giving rise to disputes that may overlap across contractual arrangements. Where a party asserts claims or set-offs across such agreements, the constitution of different arbitral tribunals may give rise to procedural complications. The Supreme Court’s decision in M/s STL Networks Limited v. Caspian India Engicon Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 12517 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 28903 of 2026), considers such a situation.
The Court directs that disputes arising under two separate agreements between the same parties be adjudicated by the same arbitrator, while expressly leaving the merits of the asserted cross-project set-off and the claims under the respective agreements open for determination.
M/s STL Networks Limited (“Appellant”) and Caspian India Engicon Pvt. Ltd. (“Respondent”) entered into two distinct contracts for optical fiber cable services across two separate projects: the “Mahanet Agreement” and the “T-Fiber Agreement.”
Disputes initially arose under the Mahanet Agreement, prompting the Respondent to file an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the High Court of Delhi. Via order dated 16th September 2025, the High Court appointed Ms. Saumya Tandon as the Sole Arbitrator for the Mahanet dispute.
Subsequently, disputes emerged under the T-Fiber Agreement. The Respondent filed a second Section 11 application before the High Court of Delhi, wherein the High Court proceeded to appoint a different arbitrator for the T-Fiber dispute. Aggrieved by the appointment of a separate arbitrator, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition.
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
Whether, in the circumstances of the case, disputes arising under two separate agreements between the same parties, involving an asserted cross-project set-off, ought to be adjudicated by different arbitrators or by the arbitrator first appointed between the parties.
The Appellant (STL Networks Limited) contended that it holds a material recovery claim arising under the T-Fiber Agreement, which it is entitled to exercise as a cross-project set-off against amounts claimed under the Mahanet Agreement. The Appellant highlighted that its recovery claim under the T-Fiber Agreement is more than double the claim raised under the Mahanet Agreement. Placing both disputes before different arbitrators would risk conflicting findings and prejudice their substantive set-off defense.
The Supreme Court did not enter into the merits of the Appellant’s claim of cross-project set-off. Having noted the Appellant’s contention that it had a material recovery claim under the T-Fiber Agreement which it sought to set off against amounts payable under the Mahanet Agreement, the Court observed that, “in the fitness of things”, the arbitration should be carried on by the same arbitrator, namely, the arbitrator first appointed between the parties.
Accordingly, the Court directed that Ms. Saumya Tandon, who had been appointed as the Sole Arbitrator in relation to the Mahanet Agreement on 16 September 2025, would also act as the arbitrator in the dispute arising under the T-Fiber Agreement. Importantly, the Court clarified that its direction should not be understood as expressing any view on the merits of the asserted cross-project set-off or on the quantum of the claims under the two agreements. All contentions were left open to be raised before the arbitrator.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and modified the order of the High Court of Delhi:
The Court substituted the second arbitrator with Ms. Saumya Tandon (the sole arbitrator appointed on 16 September 2025 under the Mahanet dispute), directing that she would act as the Sole Arbitrator in the T-Fiber dispute as well.
The Court reiterated that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the cross-project set-off or the quantum of claims under either agreement, reserving all factual and legal contentions for the arbitrator.
The decision is relevant to multi-contract commercial arrangements where disputes under separate agreements between the same parties have a factual or financial overlap. It indicates that, in an appropriate case, the existence of separate contracts and arbitration clauses does not necessarily require appointment of different arbitrators for each dispute. Where an asserted cross-contractual claim or set-off creates sufficient overlap between the disputes, the Court may consider it appropriate for the arbitrator first appointed between the parties to adjudicate the subsequent dispute as well.
At the same time, the decision does not establish a general rule requiring consolidation of arbitrations arising under separate contracts. Nor does the appointment of a common arbitrator determine whether a cross-project set-off is legally or contractually maintainable. The Supreme Court expressly left the merits of the cross-project set-off, the quantum of the respective claims and all other contentions open for determination by the arbitrator.
The judgment may therefore be relied upon in multi-contract disputes to support the appointment of a common arbitrator where the disputes are sufficiently interconnected, while recognising that the maintainability and merits of cross-contractual claims remain matters for adjudication before the arbitral tribunal.
© Nirka Law Advisory. All rights reserved. For queries, connect with us.
