An undisputed arbitration agreement permits appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11.

The petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for disputes arising from an agreement dated 31 December 2019.

The agreement contained an arbitration clause in Clause 25(ii), providing for arbitration following notice to the designated Arbitrator Appointing Authority and setting out procedures for appointment.

The respondent did not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement.

Whether a prima facie arbitration agreement existed between the parties in respect of disputes arising from the agreement dated 31 December 2019.

Whether a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11 of the Act to adjudicate the disputes.

Under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court’s enquiry at the appointment stage is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.

Clause 25(ii) of the parties’ agreement provides for arbitration of disputes arising out of or relating to the contract and prescribes procedures for appointing an arbitrator.

The appointed arbitrator must furnish the disclosure required under Section 12(2) of the Act.

The Court noted that Clause 25(ii) contained the arbitration agreement and that the respondent did not dispute its existence.

Finding no impediment to appointment of a Sole Arbitrator, the Court appointed Mr. Chandra Shekhar Mital, Chief Engineer (Retd.).

It left the parties free to raise issues—including impleadment, arbitrability and jurisdiction—before the arbitrator, who would decide them in accordance with law.

He was directed to enter upon the reference within three weeks and furnish the requisite Section 12(2) disclosure within three weeks of entering the reference.

The arbitration is to be conducted under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with fees as per its Schedule of Fees.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to deciding the Section 11 petition and would not affect the arbitrator’s independent adjudication of the disputes.