Existence of an arbitration agreement warrants appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6).

The Petitioner invoked Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator for disputes arising under the Work Order dated 16 June 2022, relating to webcasting, live streaming, and recording services provided during the 2022 bye-election for AC-39, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi.

The Work Order contained an arbitration clause providing for amicable resolution followed by arbitration, with the arbitration venue within the NCT of Delhi and exclusive jurisdiction of Delhi courts.

The Petitioner claimed that it had completed its contractual obligations and raised an invoice, but the Respondents failed to make payment despite repeated attempts.

The claim amount was stated to be ₹39,52,036.

The Respondents stated that they had no objection to the appointment of a sole arbitrator.

Whether a prima facie arbitration agreement existed between the parties so as to justify exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Whether, in view of the arbitration clause and the Respondents’ consent, a sole arbitrator ought to be appointed to adjudicate the disputes arising from the Work Order dated 16 June 2022.

The Court applied Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, governing the appointment of arbitrators where the agreed appointment procedure has not resulted in an appointment.

It held that, at the Section 11 stage, judicial enquiry is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.

The Court relied on SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754, for this principle.

The Court also gave effect to the parties’ arbitration clause, which provided for arbitration of disputes arising from the Work Order and identified the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi as the appointing authority.

The Work Order expressly contained an arbitration clause covering disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the agreement.

Since the Petitioner alleged non-payment for completed services and the Respondents did not dispute the existence or applicability of the clause, the Court found that the prima facie threshold under Section 11 was satisfied.

The Respondents’ statement that they had no objection to appointment of a sole arbitrator further removed any impediment to constituting the tribunal.

The Court therefore appointed an independent sole arbitrator, while preserving the parties’ right to raise issues of arbitrability and jurisdiction before the arbitrator.

The arbitrator was directed to enter upon the reference within two weeks and furnish the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) within two weeks of entering the reference.

The arbitration was directed to be conducted under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with fees payable under the DIAC Schedule of Fees.

The parties were permitted to raise all pleas, including objections concerning arbitrability and jurisdiction, before the arbitrator, and the Court clarified that its observations would not affect adjudication on the merits.