A valid arbitration agreement and party consensus warrant appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6).

The petitioners—Gurinder Pal Singh, Dharampal Vig and Jaspal Singh Kharbanda—filed petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from lease deeds dated 2 March 2024 concerning property bearing No. 33, Siri Fort Road, Sector-3, Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi.

The leases were for five years and six months commencing from 1 December 2023.

The petitioners alleged persistent defaults in payment of rent and stated that the leases were terminated by notices dated 16 October 2025.

Despite termination, the respondent allegedly failed to hand over vacant possession and pay outstanding rent and occupation charges.

Clause 12.2 of the lease deed contained an arbitration agreement providing for reference of disputes to a mutually appointed sole arbitrator, with New Delhi as the seat of arbitration.

The arbitration clause was invoked through notices dated 7 April 2026 under Section 21 of the Act.

The respondent stated that it had no objection to the appointment of an arbitrator.

Whether the petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, disclosed a prima facie valid arbitration agreement warranting appointment of a sole arbitrator?

Whether, in view of the parties’ agreement to refer the disputes to arbitration and the respondent’s absence of objection, the Court should appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes?

The Court applied Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, under which the Court may appoint an arbitrator where the agreed appointment procedure has failed or cannot be effectuated.

The Court reiterated that, at the Section 11 stage, judicial enquiry is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, relying on SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754.

The Court also referred to Section 21 of the Act concerning commencement of arbitral proceedings upon receipt of a request for reference to arbitration.

The Court directed the appointed arbitrator to furnish disclosures under Section 12(2).

The parties’ contractual arbitration clause, Clause 12.2, provided for arbitration by a mutually appointed sole arbitrator, with New Delhi as the seat and exclusive jurisdiction vested in New Delhi courts.

The Court found that Clause 12.2 constituted a valid arbitration agreement covering disputes arising between the parties.

The arbitration agreement had been duly invoked through notices dated 7 April 2026, satisfying the procedural requirement under Section 21.

Since the respondent expressly had no objection to appointment of an arbitrator, the parties were ad idem regarding reference of the disputes to arbitration.

Applying the limited prima facie review applicable under Section 11, the Court found no impediment to appointing a sole arbitrator and did not adjudicate the underlying disputes concerning termination, possession, rent or occupation charges.

It expressly preserved the parties’ right to raise objections concerning arbitrability and jurisdiction before the arbitrator.

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

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

The parties were permitted to raise all claims, counterclaims, and objections regarding arbitrability or jurisdiction before the arbitrator, and the Court clarified that its observations were confined to the Section 11 proceedings and would not affect adjudication on the merits.