### Judicial Scrutiny Under Section 11 is Confined to Prima Facie Examination of Arbitration Agreement’s Existence

The Petitioner filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a Service Agreement dated 05.11.2024

The agreement contained a dispute resolution clause providing for exclusive jurisdiction in New Delhi and arbitration by a single arbitrator

The Petitioner invoked arbitration via a Section 21 notice dated 27.09.2025

Despite service of notice, the Respondent failed to appear before the Court on two consecutive hearings

Whether the Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6), should limit its scrutiny to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement

Whether a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed given the Respondent’s non-appearance and the existence of a valid arbitration clause

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

It relied heavily on the precedent established by the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, which clarified that under Section 11(6-A), judicial interference is confined strictly to examining the existence of the arbitration agreement

The Court also referenced the seven-judge bench decision in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re, which emphasized the principles of arbitral autonomy and "competence-competence," leaving contested issues like "accord and satisfaction" or "frivolity" to the Arbitral Tribunal

The Court applied the "facilitative and procedural" standard of review mandated by Krish Spinning, noting that its role is limited to weeding out non-existent agreements rather than adjudicating the merits of the dispute

The Court observed that the Service Agreement explicitly provided for arbitration in Delhi

Since the Petitioner successfully demonstrated the existence of the arbitration clause and the issuance of the Section 21 notice, and because the Respondent failed to contest the petition despite service, the Court found the statutory requirements for intervention were met

The Court noted the dispute valuation at approximately Rs. 5 lakhs and determined that the principle of minimal judicial interference required the immediate constitution of the tribunal to allow the parties to resolve their substantive contentions there

The Court held that the referral court must not delve into the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal at the Section 11 stage

The Arbitrator was directed to provide statutory disclosures under Section 12(2), with fees to be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Act

All rights and contentions on merits remain open for adjudication by the Arbitrator