Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Original Jurisdiction
Order Date: 03 August 2026
Case Overview
- Parties: TVS Srichakra Limited (Petitioner) vs Quess Global SDN BHD (a division of Quess Corp Limited) and others (Respondents).
- Contract: Master Services Agreement dated 02‑01‑2019 for provision of personnel to TVS Srichakra’s overseas operations in Indonesia and Vietnam.
- Dispute Origin: Billing‑related issues surfaced around July 2022, including incorrect currency conversion rates, double charging for the same claim, and non‑payment to personnel despite charging the petitioner.
- Negotiation Attempts: Clause 19 of the Agreement required good‑faith negotiations at two senior‑executive levels before arbitration. Letters, replies and legal notices were exchanged between December 2022 and November 2023; Respondents denied liability but expressed willingness to negotiate.
- Arbitration Notice: On 09‑02‑2024, TVS Srichakra issued a notice under Clause 19 invoking arbitration and nominated Mr. Ramasubramaniam Raja, Advocate, as sole arbitrator.
- Respondent’s Reply: Respondent No.2 replied on 09‑01‑2025 (approximately eleven months later), proposing further negotiations without confirming the arbitrator nomination. Negotiations continued from February to May 2025 without resolution.
- Petition Filed: Under Sections 11(6), 11(9) and 11(12)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, TVS Srichakra filed Arbitration Petition No. 20 of 2026 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator and designating Chennai as the seat of arbitration.
Final Outcome
- The Supreme Court allowed the arbitration petition.
- The matter was referred to the Nani Palkhivala Arbitration Centre, Chennai, for appointment of the sole arbitrator.
- The arbitrator’s fees shall be governed by the applicable rules of the Nani Palkhivala Arbitration Centre.
- All pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of.
- The order was signed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana.
Topics: Arbitration, Corporate Dispute