Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Original Jurisdiction

Order Date: 21 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Petition: Arbitration Petition No. 82 of 2025 filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
  • Parties: Ecologic Circle Limited (Petitioner), a company incorporated under the laws of Thailand; Ecosure Pulpmolding Technologies Limited (Respondent), incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 in India.
  • Contracts: Equipment Sales Contract and Equipment Installation Contract dated 13 January 2025 for supply, installation and commissioning of pulp‑moulding equipment for the Petitioner's project in Thailand. Clause 15 of the Sales Contract and Clause 16(b) of the Installation Contract provide for arbitration; Clause 22 also allows negotiation, mediation and arbitration under ICC Rules.
  • Payment: Petitioner remitted USD 204,642 under the contracts. Respondent failed to manufacture, ship, install the equipment within agreed timelines and did not refund the amount.
  • Communications: Respondent acknowledged performance difficulties, proposed cancellation, agreed to refund in instalments, but failed to do so. Respondent later caused a criminal complaint to be filed before a court in Gautam Budh Nagar.
  • Arbitration Invocation: Petitioner issued notice of arbitration on 11 October 2025, proposing a former Delhi High Court Judge as sole arbitrator, served by email, post and courier. Respondent gave no reply.
  • Jurisdiction: As the petitioner is incorporated in Thailand, the dispute qualifies as “international commercial arbitration” under Section 2(1)(f) of the 1996 Act; the Court has jurisdiction under Section 11(12)(a).
  • Service: Notice served at Respondent’s Greater Noida address; on 26 May 2026 the Court directed service through Respondent’s counsel in other proceedings. Proof of service by email placed on record; no appearance by Respondent.
  • Preliminary Findings: Court, after hearing Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and limited scrutiny under Section 11, is satisfied prima facie of the existence of an arbitration agreement and that the disputes fall within its ambit.

Final Outcome

  • The Arbitration Petition is allowed.
  • Mr. Rajiv Jain, Advocate, is appointed as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising out of or in connection with the Contracts.
  • The appointment is subject to the arbitrator furnishing disclosures under Section 12(1) of the 1996 Act and not being ineligible under Section 12(5).
  • All questions concerning jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, arbitrability, limitation, maintainability, and interpretation of arbitration clauses are left open to be raised before the arbitrator.
  • The Contracts do not expressly designate a seat of arbitration; the Petitioner proposed New Delhi, India, and Respondent has not objected. Consequently, the seat and venue of arbitration are fixed at New Delhi, India.
  • The arbitrator may fix remuneration/fees in consultation with the parties.
  • Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.
  • The order is signed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana.

Record of Proceedings

  • Petition No(s). 82/2025; IA No. 336793/2025 (exemption from filing O.T.).
  • Hearing date: 21‑08‑2026.
  • Coram: Hon'ble Chief Justice Surya Kant, Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Hon'ble Justice V. Mohana.
  • Counsel for Petitioner: Sr. Adv. Dhanesh Relan, Adv. Ashish Batra, AOR Mrs. Brinda Batra.
  • No counsel listed for Respondent.
  • Order reiterated that the Arbitration Petition is allowed; pending applications stand closed.
  • Registrars: Nitin Talreja (ASTT. Registrar‑cum‑PS) and Preethi Dileep Kumar (Dy. Registrar).

Topics: Arbitration, International Commercial Dispute