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

The Petitioners filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.

The disputes arose from Clause 30 of a Lease Agreement and Clause 16 of a Maintenance Agreement, both executed on 23.08.2023.

Clause 11 of the Maintenance Agreement stipulated that it would run concurrently with the Lease Agreement.

The Petitioners invoked arbitration via a legal notice dated 12.01.2026.

During the proceedings, both parties expressed mutual agreement (ad idem) that their disputes should be referred to a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication.

Whether the Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint a Sole Arbitrator given the existence of the arbitration agreements and the mutual consent of the parties.

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

The Court relied extensively on the Supreme Court’s ruling in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024) 12 SCC 1, which integrated the principles of the seven-judge Bench in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re.

Judicial intervention at the Section 11 stage is confined strictly to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement.

The doctrine of "competence-competence" under Section 16 mandates that contested factual or legal issues, such as "accord and satisfaction," must be left to the Arbitral Tribunal.

The Court noted that its jurisdiction under Section 11 is "extremely circumscribed" and facilitative in nature.

Following the mandate in Krish Spinning, the Court limited its scrutiny to the existence of a valid arbitration agreement without embarking on a laborious inquiry into the merits of the dispute.

Since the parties were in agreement regarding the reference of the dispute to a Sole Arbitrator and the arbitration clauses in both the Lease and Maintenance Agreements were evident, the Court found no impediment to the appointment.

The Court emphasized that all contentions, including those of a factual or legal nature, remain open for the Arbitrator to decide, preserving the principle of arbitral autonomy.

Mr. Nitin Soni, Advocate, was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes, which were valued at approximately Rs. 25,00,000/-.

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

The parties were ordered to share arbitral costs and fees equally.

All rights and contentions on the merits of the claims were kept open for the Arbitral Tribunal.