Consolidated arbitration before the first-appointed arbitrator is appropriate for interconnected cross-project claims.

The parties had entered into two separate contracts for optical fibre cable services: the Mahanet Agreement and the T-Fiber Agreement.

In proceedings relating to the Mahanet Agreement, the High Court of Delhi appointed Ms. Saumya Tandon as Sole Arbitrator on 16 September 2025. Disputes subsequently arose under the T-Fiber Agreement, pursuant to which the respondent filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the High Court, resulting in the appointment of another arbitrator.

The appellant contended that its substantial recovery claim under the T-Fiber Agreement was capable of being raised as a cross-project set-off against amounts claimed under the Mahanet Agreement, and that the T-Fiber claim exceeded twice the claim under the Mahanet Agreement.

Whether disputes arising under the T-Fiber Agreement should be referred to the same arbitrator appointed in the arbitration concerning the Mahanet Agreement, in view of the asserted cross-project set-off and overlapping claims.

Whether the Supreme Court should determine the merits of the alleged cross-project set-off or the quantum of the parties’ claims at the stage of appointing the arbitrator.

The Court applied Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, concerning the appointment of arbitrators.

It further applied the procedural principle that, where disputes under separate agreements are materially connected and claims under one agreement may be set off against claims under another, it is appropriate, in the interests of consistency and convenience, for the disputes to be adjudicated by the same arbitrator.

The Court clarified that the appointment decision did not determine the merits of the cross-project set-off or the quantum of the claims.

The Court noted the appellant’s contention that the T-Fiber claim was substantially connected with the Mahanet dispute because it was proposed to be asserted as a cross-project set-off.

Without adjudicating the contractual merits or the amount of either claim, the Court considered it appropriate that both arbitrations be conducted before the arbitrator already appointed in the Mahanet proceedings. This approach avoided parallel adjudication before different arbitrators while preserving the parties’ right to raise all substantive and jurisdictional contentions before the arbitrator.

The parties were permitted to raise all contentions before her, and the Supreme Court expressly stated that it had not decided the merits of the alleged cross-project set-off or the quantum of the claims under either agreement.

Pending applications, if any, were rejected.