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

Tata Capital Limited filed two petitions under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator in disputes arising from Agreements for Unsecured Loan dated 28 August 2024 and 4 November 2022, respectively.

The arbitration clauses in both agreements provided for resolution of disputes by a sole arbitrator and prescribed a procedure for proposing arbitrators and, in specified circumstances, seeking court appointment.

The claimed amounts were ₹8,37,728.13 in ARB.P. 1053/2026 and ₹63,76,982 in ARB.P. 1123/2026.

Despite service, the respondents did not appear. The Court had earlier granted them a further opportunity and clarified that the matters would be decided in their absence if they failed to appear on the next date.

Whether the loan agreements contained a valid arbitration agreement sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Whether, in the absence of appearance or response from the respondents, a sole arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

The Court applied Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers the court to appoint an arbitrator where the agreed appointment procedure has failed or cannot effectively be operated.

The Court reiterated the settled principle that, at the Section 11 stage, judicial inquiry is confined to determining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.

The arbitration proceedings were directed to be conducted under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, subject to the arbitrator’s disclosures under Section 12(2), and under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre.

The arbitration clauses expressly covered disputes arising out of or relating to the loan facilities, the facility documents, and the parties’ rights and liabilities, and provided for resolution by a sole arbitrator.

Since the existence of these arbitration agreements was apparent on the face of the loan documents, the Court found that the threshold requirement under Section 11 was satisfied.

The respondents had been served but neither appeared nor opposed the petitions despite the opportunity granted by the Court.

In these circumstances, and observing that there was no impediment to appointment, the Court appointed a sole arbitrator while leaving all questions concerning arbitrability, jurisdiction, and the merits open for determination in arbitration.

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

The arbitration was directed to be conducted under the rules and aegis of DIAC, with fees payable according to the DIAC schedule.

The parties were permitted to raise all pleas, including objections to arbitrability and jurisdiction, before the arbitrator, and the petitions were disposed of accordingly.