### Referral Court’s Jurisdiction Under Section 11 Confined to Prima Facie Examination of Arbitration Agreement’s Existence

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

The dispute arose from a Home Equity Agreement (HEA) dated 30.10.2019 and an Additional Facility Agreement (AFA) dated 29.08.2020, both containing arbitration clauses

A Section 21 notice invoking arbitration was issued on 31.01.2025

Despite being duly served, the Respondents failed to enter an appearance or participate in the proceedings

1. Whether a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed by the Court under Section 11 when the respondent remains unrepresented despite service

2. Whether the Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a Section 11 petition based on a clause providing for arbitration at multiple locations decided unilaterally by the lender

3. What is the standard of judicial scrutiny required at the Section 11 stage following recent Supreme Court precedents

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

The scope of judicial interference under Section 11 is confined strictly to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement

Issues such as "accord and satisfaction" or "ex facie frivolity" fall within the exclusive domain of the Arbitral Tribunal under the principle of competence-competence

The Court observed that since a valid arbitration agreement existed in the HEA and AFA and the Respondents chose not to contest the proceedings, there was no impediment to referring the matter to arbitration

Applying the "eye of the needle" standard as refined in Krish Spinning, the Court limited its enquiry to the existence of the agreement, leaving all other contentious factual and legal issues—including the validity of the unilateral choice of seat—to be decided by the Arbitrator

The Court noted that even though the parties and property appeared to be in Delhi, the question of territorial jurisdiction resulting from unilateral invocation was left open for the tribunal's determination

The Court allowed the petition and appointed Ms. Amrit Kaur Oberoi, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes

All rights and contentions on merits were left open for the Arbitral Tribunal