### Court’s Section 11 Jurisdiction Is Confined To Prima Facie Examination Of Arbitration Agreement’s Existence Only

The Petitioner sought the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act") to resolve disputes arising from a work contract dated 03.12.2021

The General Conditions of Contract (GCC) contained a dispute resolution mechanism in Clause 9.0.0.0, governing "Notified Claims"

The Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause via a Section 21 notice on 13.03.2024

The Respondent did not object to the appointment, and the aggregate value of the claims and counter-claims was estimated at approximately ₹10 lakhs

1. Whether a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11 of the Act given the existence of an arbitration agreement and the fulfillment of statutory notice requirements

2. What is the permissible scope and standard of judicial scrutiny at the referral stage under Section 11(6-A) of the Act

Section 11(6-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, confines judicial examination to the mere existence of an arbitration agreement

The precedent of SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024), which incorporated the seven-judge bench ruling in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements... In re (2024), established that the court must only conduct a prima facie scrutiny of the agreement’s existence and leave all other issues to the Arbitral Tribunal under the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz defined in Section 16

The court observed that its role is strictly facilitative and procedural under the post-2015 legal regime

Following the Krish Spinning mandate, the court declined to conduct a "laborious enquiry" into the facts or the nature of the claims (e.g., whether they were "Notified Claims"), as such matters are reserved for the arbitrator

Since the Petitioner proved the existence of the arbitration clause in the GCC and compliance with Section 21, and because the Respondent consented to the reference, the court found the prima facie standard for appointment fully satisfied

The court emphasized that even issues of "frivolity" are best decided by the tribunal after a full review of evidence, rather than by the Referral Court

Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Advocate, was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator; the court directed the Arbitrator to provide disclosures under Section 12(2), with fees to be determined per the Fourth Schedule of the Act

The petition was disposed of with all rights and contentions on the merits kept open for the tribunal’s adjudication