A Section 11 court’s inquiry is confined to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.

The parties entered into a Franchise Agreement dated 16 May 2025, under which the petitioner delivered 44 commercial vehicles to the respondent.

Disputes arose concerning alleged payment defaults and the return of the vehicles.

Clause 17(b) provided for arbitration before a sole arbitrator, appointed by mutual consent, with the seat at New Delhi.

The petitioner invoked arbitration by notice dated 23 June 2026 under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and filed this petition under Section 11(6) seeking appointment of an arbitrator.

The Court recorded that the respondent had been served but did not appear.

Whether a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties so as to warrant appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act.

Whether the Court should appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising from the Franchise Agreement.

Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 empowers the Court to appoint an arbitrator where the agreed appointment procedure has not resulted in an appointment.

The Court stated that, at this stage, its enquiry is confined to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, relying on SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754.

The parties’ arbitration agreement was contained in Clause 17(b) of the Franchise Agreement, which provided for arbitration by a sole arbitrator and specified New Delhi as the place of arbitration.

The appointed arbitrator was required to furnish the disclosure contemplated by Section 12(2) of the Act.

Clause 17(b) expressly provided for arbitration of disputes arising out of or relating to the Agreement, and the Court found no dispute concerning the existence of a valid arbitration clause.

The petitioner had invoked arbitration, while the respondent, though served, did not appear.

Finding no impediment to appointment, the Court appointed a sole arbitrator; it left questions including arbitrability and jurisdiction open for determination by the arbitrator.

The arbitrator was directed to enter upon the reference within two weeks and furnish the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2); the arbitration is to be conducted under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with fees payable under its Schedule of Fees.

The parties may raise all pleas, including objections to arbitrability and jurisdiction, before the arbitrator, who must decide them independently and uninfluenced by the Court’s observations.

The petition and pending applications were disposed of.