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

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

The disputes arose from a Loan Agreement dated 29.02.2024, which contained an arbitration clause (Clause 9) read with Annexure 1, designating Delhi as the jurisdictional seat

The Petitioner invoked arbitration via notice on 03.02.2026

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

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

2. Whether the Court’s scope of inquiry under Section 11 is limited to the prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement

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

It heavily relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spg. (2024), which interpreted the effects of the seven-judge bench decision in In re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 Stamp Act, 1899

These precedents establish that the referral court must confine itself to a prima facie examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement, leaving questions of "accord and satisfaction," validity, or frivolousness to the Arbitral Tribunal under the principle of competence-competence

The Court observed that all statutory requirements under Section 11 were met, including the existence of a valid arbitration clause in the Loan Agreement and the fulfillment of the Section 21 notice requirement

Following the "hands-off" approach mandated in Krish Spg., the Court held that its role is purely facilitative and procedural

Since the Respondents chose not to contest the petition, and the arbitration agreement prima facie exists, the Court found no impediment to referring the matter to arbitration

The Court emphasized that it must not embark on a "laborious enquiry" into the merits or contested facts, as such matters are reserved for the Arbitral Tribunal’s determination under Section 16 of the Act

The Arbitrator’s fee is to be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Act

The Court clarified that all rights and contentions remain open for the Arbitrator to decide on merits, and the present order is not an expression of opinion on the controversy

The petition was disposed of accordingly