A valid arbitration agreement and parties’ consensus warrant appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11.

The Petitioner filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising out of a Construction Agreement executed between the parties in or about June 2022.

The disputes concerned the construction and development of the subject property, including allegations of incomplete construction, use of inferior or sub-standard materials, and failure to provide facilities and documents in accordance with the agreed specifications.

Clause 29 of the Construction Agreement provided for reference of disputes to a mutually appointed sole arbitrator, with New Delhi as the place of arbitration and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 governing the proceedings.

The Petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement by notice dated 4 February 2026.

Respondent No. 2 was only a pro forma party, with no relief sought against it.

Respondent No. 1 did not object to the reference of the disputes to arbitration.

Whether a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties so as to attract the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

Whether, in view of the parties’ consensus regarding arbitration, a sole arbitrator ought to be appointed to adjudicate the disputes?

The Court applied Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, under which the Court’s enquiry at the stage of appointing an arbitrator is confined to examining the prima facie existence of a valid arbitration agreement.

Where a valid arbitration clause exists and the parties are ad idem regarding reference of their disputes to arbitration, the Court may appoint a sole arbitrator.

The appointed arbitrator must furnish the requisite disclosures under Section 12(2) of the Act.

The parties remain entitled to raise objections relating to arbitrability and jurisdiction before the arbitral tribunal.

The Court found that Clause 29 expressly constituted an arbitration agreement providing for reference of disputes to a mutually appointed sole arbitrator, with New Delhi as the place of arbitration.

The Petitioner had validly invoked the clause through its notice dated 4 February 2026.

Since there was no dispute regarding the existence of the arbitration agreement and Respondent No. 1 consented to the reference, the limited Section 11 enquiry was satisfied.

Consequently, the Court found no impediment to appointing a sole arbitrator, while preserving the parties’ right to raise all jurisdictional and arbitrability objections before the tribunal.

The arbitrator was directed to enter upon the reference within three weeks and to furnish the disclosures required under Section 12(2) of the Act.

The arbitration was directed to be conducted under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with fees payable as per the DIAC Schedule of Fees.

The Court clarified that the parties could raise all pleas, including objections to arbitrability and jurisdiction, before the arbitrator, and that the observations in the order would not affect adjudication on the merits.