Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Tvs Srichakra Limited vs Quess Global Sdn Bhd (A Division Of Quess … on 3 August, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 20 OF 2026
TVS SRICHAKRA LIMITED PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
QUESS GLOBAL SDN BHD RESPONDENT(S)
(A DIVISION OF QUESS CORP LIMITED) & ANR.
O R D E R
1. This petition under Section 11(6) read with Section
11(9) and Section 11(12)(a) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act), seeks the appointment of a sole
arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from a Master
Services Agreement dated 02.01.2019 (Agreement). The said
agreement was executed between the Petitioner and Respondent
No.1 to provide personnel for Petitioner’s overseas
operations in Indonesia and Vietnam.
2. Briefly observed, the Petitioner, TVS Srichakra Limited,
is a company incorporated in India and engaged in the
manufacture and export of two-wheeler, three-wheeler and off-
highway tyres. The Petitioner approached Respondent No. 2, an
Indian company engaged in providing human resource services,
for human resource support in respect of its overseas
operations in Indonesia and Vietnam. Respondent No.2
suggested the Petitioner to contract with Respondent No. 1,
its Malaysian division, and accordingly the Petitioner and
Respondent No.1 entered into the Agreement dated 02.01.2019.
3. It appears that the dispute arose around July 2022
Signature Not Verified
onwards, when the Petitioner raised billing-related issues
Digitally signed by
SACHIN KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
against Respondent No.1. The Petitioner flagged certain
Date: 2026.08.07
17:36:24 IST
Reason:
discrepancies, including incorrect conversion rates, being
charged twice for the same claim, and the Respondents not1
paying its personnel despite charging the Petitioner. Clause
19 of the Agreement provided for resolution of disputes first
through good-faith negotiations between at least two levels
of senior executives, failing which disputes were to be
finally settled by arbitration under the Act. In terms of the
aforesaid clause, the parties exchanged letters, replies and
legal notices between December 2022 and November 2023, with
the Respondents denying liability but expressing willingness
to negotiate.
4. In these circumstances, the Petitioner issued a notice
dated 09.02.2024 under Clause 19 of the Agreement, invoking
arbitration and proposing the name of Mr. Ramasubramaniam
Raja, Advocate as sole arbitrator. Respondent No.2 replied
vide communication dated 09.01.2025, i.e., approximately
eleven months later, proposing further negotiations without
addressing or confirming the nomination of the proposed Sole
Arbitrator. Negotiations and correspondence thereafter
continued between February and May 2025 but to no avail.
5. As the Respondents failed to accept the nomination of
the proposed Sole Arbitrator nor could an amicable settlement
be reached between the parties, the present Petition has been
filed under Section 11(6) read with Section 11(9) and Section
11(12)(a) of the Act, seeking appointment of a Sole
Arbitrator and designating Chennai as the seat and venue of
the arbitration.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material placed on record.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances recorded
above and the relevant provision(s) under the agreement dated
02.01.2019, we deem it just and proper to allow the instant
Arbitration Petition. We accordingly refer the matter to Nani
Palkhivala Arbitration Centre at Chennai for appointment of
the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the
parties.
8. The fees of the Arbitrator shall be governed by the
2
applicable rules of the Nani Palkhivala Arbitration Centre.
Ordered accordingly.
9. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
…………………CJI.
(SURYA KANT)
…………………..J.
(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)
…………………..J.
(V. MOHANA)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 03, 2026
3
ITEM NO.47 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL-W
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Arbitration No(s).20/2026
TVS SRICHAKRA LIMITED Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
QUESS GLOBAL SDN BHD
(A DIVISION OF QUESS CORP LIMITED) & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 03-08-2026 This petition was called on for hearing
today.
CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE V. MOHANA
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Ishaan George, AOR
Mr. Uttam Cheriyan, Adv.
Dr. Rukma George, Adv.
Mr. Sumit Kumar Siddharth, Adv.
Mr. Aman Ahluwalia, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The Arbitration Petition is allowed in terms of the
signed order.
2. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed
of.
(ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI DILEEP KUMAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS DY. REGISTRAR
(signed order is placed on the file)
4
