Referral Court cannot conduct intricate evidentiary inquiry into limitation of underlying claims under Section 11.

The Petitioners entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 22.09.2009 with Respondent No. 1 for the purchase of a residential unit in Kolkata

Despite full payment of consideration and delivery of possession, the formal Deed of Conveyance was never registered

Over the years, parties exchanged correspondence regarding discrepancies in the draft deed, specifically access to the building's roof

On 19.08.2025, Respondent No. 1 formally declined to execute the deed, asserting that the claim was barred by limitation

The Petitioners invoked the arbitration clause (Clause 11.1) via a Section 21 notice on 10.09.2025

Following the Respondents' refusal to consent to an arbitrator, the Petitioners filed the present application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

1. Whether the referral court under Section 11(6) is required to conduct an inquiry into whether the underlying claims are barred by limitation

2. Whether the dispute between the parties qualifies for the appointment of a sole arbitrator

The court primarily applied Section 11(6) and Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 regarding the appointment of arbitrators

It relied heavily on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024), which clarified that referral courts must limit their enquiry to the limitation of the Section 11(6) petition itself, rather than the underlying claims

The court also applied Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a three-year period for filing the application from the date of refusal to appoint an arbitrator

The court rejected the Respondent's argument that the claims were "dead" under the Arif Azim (2024) test, noting that the Krish Spinning (2024) decision expressly overruled the requirement for referral courts to vet the limitation of underlying claims

The court reasoned that determining limitation in this specific case involves complex evidentiary questions—such as when the "unequivocal refusal" occurred and the effect of ongoing negotiations—which must be reserved for the Arbitral Tribunal

The court found that all statutory requirements were met: a prima facie valid arbitration agreement existed, a Section 21 notice had been served, and the Section 11(6) petition was filed within three years of the Respondent's refusal to appoint an arbitrator

The court allowed the petition and appointed Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya as the Sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator was granted the liberty to decide all issues of limitation and maintainability of the underlying claims as preliminary issues; Respondent No. 1 was directed to comply with disclosure requirements under Section 12