Judicial scrutiny under Section 11 is confined to prima facie examination of the arbitration agreement's existence.

The Petitioner filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act"), seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from a Fulfillment Service Agreement dated April 13, 2021.

Clause 16 of the Agreement contains an arbitration clause designating New Delhi as the seat, while Clause 17 subjects the agreement to the jurisdiction of Delhi courts.

The Petitioner fulfilled the statutory mandate by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Act on November 5, 2025.

Despite being duly served and granted multiple opportunities, the Respondents failed to enter an appearance or file a reply.

The subject matter of the dispute is valued at approximately Rs. 84,00,000/-.

1. Whether the Court should appoint a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act given the Respondent’s failure to participate in the proceedings.

2. What is the permissible scope and standard of judicial scrutiny by a referral court at the stage of Section 11 of the Act?

Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers the High Court to appoint an arbitrator when the agreed appointment procedure fails.

The Court relied heavily on the precedent established by the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024), which followed the seven-judge Bench decision in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re (2024).

These precedents establish that the scope of judicial inquiry under Section 11 is strictly confined to a prima facie examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement and does not extend to contested issues such as "accord and satisfaction" or the merits of the dispute, which are reserved for the Arbitral Tribunal under the principle of competence-competence.

The Court observed that the arbitration agreement (Clause 16) and the jurisdictional clause (Clause 17) clearly established the parties' intent to resolve disputes via arbitration in New Delhi.

Upon verifying that the Section 21 notice was served, the Court noted the Respondent's continuous absence, which left the Petitioner's assertions uncontroverted.

Applying the principles from Krish Spinning, the Court reasoned that its role is facilitative and procedural rather than adjudicatory.

It held that since a valid arbitration agreement exists prima facie, any contentious factual or legal issues must be left to the Arbitrator.

The Court emphasized that delving into the details of the dispute at this nascent stage would undermine the legislative intent of "minimum judicial interference" and the objective of an expeditious appointment process.

The Court appointed Mr. Pattabhiram Vadrevu, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties.

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

All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open for the Arbitrator's determination on merits.