Court’s Section 11 Jurisdiction Is Limited to Prima Facie Examination of Arbitration Agreement’s Existence

The Petitioner (Delhivery Limited) and the Respondent (Xpress Miles Private Limited) entered into a Delivery Services Agreement on June 27, 2024

Clause 19 of the Agreement contained an arbitration clause providing for the appointment of a sole arbitrator and designating New Delhi as the seat of arbitration

Disputes arose between the parties involving an approximate value of Rs. 82 Lakhs

The Petitioner served a statutory notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on February 2, 2026

Despite being duly served with notice of the present petition via court orders dated April 17, 2026, and May 12, 2026, the Respondent failed to appear or file a reply

1. Whether a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, given the Respondent's non-appearance and the existence of a valid arbitration agreement

Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding the judicial appointment of arbitrators

The scope of judicial interference under Section 11 is confined strictly to a prima facie examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement and its formal validity (e.g., being in writing), as established in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024) and Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re

The principle of competence-competence, leaving substantive issues like "accord and satisfaction" or "frivolity" to the Arbitral Tribunal

The Court observed that the Petitioner had fulfilled all statutory requirements, including the issuance of a Section 21 notice

Applying the "circumscribed" standard of scrutiny mandated by Krish Spinning, the Court noted that its role is facilitative and procedural rather than adjudicatory

Since the Respondent chose not to participate despite service, and a valid arbitration agreement (Clause 19) was prima facie evident in the Agreement, there was no legal impediment to referring the matter to arbitration

The Court emphasized that referring the dispute does not express an opinion on the merits but merely upholds the parties' original intent to arbitrate

The Court held that the arbitration would be conducted under the aegis and rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC)

The Arbitrator was directed to file the mandatory disclosure under Section 12(2) within one week and all rights and contentions on merits were left open for the Arbitrator’s determination