An admitted arbitration agreement warrants appointment, leaving jurisdictional objections to the tribunal.

The parties entered into a Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Retail Outlet Dealership Agreement on 3 June 2014, concerning a retail outlet in Sonipat, Haryana.

The petitioners’ disputes arose, among other things, from IOCL’s suspension of petroleum-product supplies in September 2020, subsequent show-cause notices, and the alleged failure to honour an amicable arrangement recorded in meeting minutes and a consent order.

The petitioners invoked arbitration by notice dated 20 April 2026, but received no response.

They then sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

IOCL’s termination order referred to clauses 59–63 of the Dealership Agreement, and the Court treated the existence of the arbitration agreement as undisputed.

1. Whether the Court should appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, where the existence of the arbitration agreement was admitted and the invocation notice had elicited no response.

2. Whether objections concerning arbitrability or jurisdiction should be determined at the appointment stage or left for the arbitral tribunal.

Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for court appointment of an arbitrator in the circumstances specified by the Act; Section 12 requires the arbitrator to furnish the requisite disclosure.

The Court relied on Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd., (2020) 20 SCC 760; TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd., (2017) 8 SCC 377; Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 547; SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024 INSC 532; and Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 & the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, In re, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1666, as supporting the constitution of an arbitral tribunal where the arbitration agreement’s existence was admitted.

Questions of arbitrability or jurisdiction could be raised before and decided by the arbitrator.

The Court found that the existence of the arbitration agreement was not disputed, including in light of the termination order’s reference to provisions of the Dealership Agreement that applied despite termination.

Given that admission and the authorities cited, the Court saw no impediment to constituting the tribunal.

It left any preliminary objections concerning arbitrability or jurisdiction to the arbitrator, rather than deciding them at the appointment stage.

The respondents may raise preliminary objections on arbitrability or jurisdiction before the arbitrator, and the parties’ claims, counterclaims, and other contentions were left open for determination on the merits.

The petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.