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

The Petitioners filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act"), seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a Service Agreement dated 30.09.2023

Clause 13.8 of the Agreement provided for dispute resolution via arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator with the venue in New Delhi

The Petitioners invoked arbitration through a notice issued on 22.10.2025

The Respondent appeared and stated they had no objection to the disputes being referred to arbitration

1. Whether the Court should appoint a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act based on the existence of an arbitration agreement

2. What is the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny required at the stage of Section 11(6) in light of recent Supreme Court precedents

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

It relied extensively on the three-judge bench decision in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, which established that judicial intervention under Section 11 is confined to a prima facie examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement

The Court further applied the principles from the seven-judge bench in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re, which restricted the referral court from conducting a contested or "laborious enquiry" into the validity of the agreement or issues like "accord and satisfaction," leaving such determinations to the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16

The Court observed that its role under Section 11 is facilitative and procedural, aimed at giving effect to the parties' mutual intention to arbitrate when the appointment mechanism fails

Citing Krish Spinning, the Court noted that the legislative introduction of Section 11(6-A) limited judicial scrutiny strictly to the existence of the agreement, effectively overruling previous standards that allowed for weeding out "frivolous" or "non-arbitrable" disputes at the referral stage

In the present case, the existence of the arbitration clause was undisputed

The Court reasoned that any substantive or contested factual/legal issues must be reserved for the Arbitral Tribunal to protect arbitral autonomy and ensure minimum judicial interference

Given the Respondent's "no objection" and the established prima facie existence of Clause 13.8, the Court found it necessary to exercise its power to appoint an arbitrator

It appointed Ms. Veena Ralli, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes

The Court directed the Arbitrator to provide requisite disclosures under Section 12(2) and held that fees would be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Act

All rights and contentions regarding the merits were left open for adjudication by the Arbitrator