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

The Petitioner, Blink Fix Private Limited, filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator

The dispute arose from a Marketing Service Agreement dated 10.03.2023, which contained a dispute resolution clause (Clause 9) providing for arbitration in New Delhi after a 90-day amicable consultation period

The Petitioner invoked arbitration via a statutory notice under Section 21 dated 23.04.2025

Despite being duly served and granted additional opportunities by the Court on 06.04.2026 to file a reply or enter an appearance, the Respondent failed to appear or contest the proceedings

1. Whether the Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act to appoint an arbitrator when the Respondent fails to participate in the proceedings despite service

2. Whether the scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11 is limited solely to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement

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

It relied heavily on the three-judge bench decision in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024), which incorporated the findings of the seven-judge bench in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re. These precedents establish that the referral court's mandate is restricted to a prima facie examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement, leaving contested issues like "accord and satisfaction" or "frivolity" to the Arbitral Tribunal under the principle of competence-competence

The Court observed that the statutory requirements for invoking arbitration, including the Section 21 notice, were fulfilled

Since the Respondent chose not to contest the petition despite service, the Court found no impediment to referring the matter to arbitration

Applying the "facilitative" standard set in Krish Spinning, the Court noted that its role is not to conduct a "laborious enquiry" into the merits or validity of the claims but to ensure the parties' mutual intention to arbitrate is honored

Given the existence of Clause 9 in the Agreement and the failure of the appointment mechanism, the Court determined that the appointment of an independent arbitrator was necessary to resolve the deadlock

The Court allowed the petition and appointed Mr. Shahid Khan, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes (valued at approximately Rs. 25 lakhs) under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The Court directed the Arbitrator to provide disclosures under Section 12(2) and ruled that all rights and contentions on merits remain open for the Tribunal's determination