Is arbitration under a second agreement between the same parties carried on by the same Arbitrator already appointed under the first agreement?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.11 — Appointment of arbitrator — Connected disputes — Same arbitrator —
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.11 — Appointment of arbitrator for connected disputes —
Held: Where two agreements between the same parties give rise to related arbitration proceedings, the same, first-appointed Arbitrator continues to arbitrate both disputes; the Court expresses no opinion on the merits of the underlying cross-project set-off claim. Appeal allowed. (¶4, 5)
Is arbitration under a second agreement between the same parties carried on by the same Arbitrator already appointed under the first agreement?
Yes. Where a second agreement between the same parties gives rise to a connected arbitration, the same Arbitrator first appointed to hear the earlier dispute continues to hear the later one; the Court expressed no view on the merits of the underlying cross-project set-off, leaving all contentions open before the Arbitrator. (¶4, 5) [¶4, ¶5]
What did the Supreme Court finally decide on the appointment of the arbitrator for the connected disputes?
The appeal was allowed. The impugned order appointing a separate arbitrator for the T-Fiber Agreement dispute was modified, and Ms. Saumya Tandon — already appointed as Sole Arbitrator under the Mahanet Agreement — was directed to arbitrate this dispute as well, without prejudice to the parties' contentions on the cross-project set-off. (¶4, 5, 6) [¶4, ¶5, ¶6]
Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.
“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.”
Headnote & Points of Law
You've used your free headnotes this month
The Court's judgment is below in full, free, as always — that never changes. What needs an account is LexStreak's own work on it: the headnote, the questions this judgment settles, and the passages that decide them. A free account opens all of it again.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Leave granted.
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 appointed.
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.
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.
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.
The appeal is allowed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand rejected. .......…….……………………. J. (J. B. PARDIWALA) ....……….……………………. J. (K. VINOD CHANDRAN) NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 07, 2026.
Does a general reference to an earlier contract incorporate its arbitration clause into a later contract, unless the reference specifically identifies the clause?
2026 INSC 977 · Supreme Court of India
Does the phrase 'at least' in a notification set a floor or a ceiling on the obligation?
WA.3215/2025 · Madras High Court
Whether the Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 has jurisdiction to confer permanent status on contract labourers, or whether only the Labour Court can decide such claims?
WP(MD).16609/2020 · Madras High Court
The Supreme Court and the Madras High Court decide something every day. Read one a day.
A free account gets you the day's judgments in your practice areas, a reading streak, and folders to keep what matters.
Start reading freeOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's and the Madras High Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.
Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Headnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy