Referral Court's jurisdiction under Section 11 is confined to prima facie examination of arbitration agreement existence.

The Petitioner, Vijay Tyagi, sought the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, following disputes arising from a Work Award Letter dated June 21, 2013

Clause 25 of the agreement provided for arbitration by a sole arbitrator appointed by the Chairperson of the NDMC

The Petitioner invoked arbitration via correspondence on September 10, 2025

The Respondent (NDMC) opposed the petition on the grounds that the claims were ex-facie barred by limitation, having been raised beyond the three-year prescribed period

1. Whether the court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6), should adjudicate on the issue of limitation or refer it to the Arbitral Tribunal.

2. Whether there exists a valid arbitration agreement between the parties warranting the appointment of an arbitrator.

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

It relied heavily on the precedent established by the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024), which followed the seven-judge bench decision in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re

These precedents establish that the court's jurisdiction under Section 11 is confined to a prima facie examination of the "existence" of an arbitration agreement, leaving questions of "accord and satisfaction," "limitation," or "frivolity" to the Arbitral Tribunal under the principle of competence-competence

The Court observed that under current jurisprudence, the scope of judicial scrutiny at the Section 11 stage is "extremely circumscribed" and "facilitative"

Dealing with the Respondent's objection regarding limitation, the Court held that such issues are mixed questions of law and fact falling within the exclusive domain of the Arbitral Tribunal

Referencing Krish Spinning, the Court noted that tests like the "eye of the needle" or "ex-facie meritless" are no longer in conformity with modern arbitration principles that prioritize arbitral autonomy

Since the existence of Clause 25 (the arbitration agreement) was not in dispute, the Court determined that the technical plea of limitation must be raised before and decided by the arbitrator

The Court appointed Mr. Rajul Jain, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes

The arbitrator was directed to provide disclosures under Section 12(2) and fees were fixed as per the Fourth Schedule of the Act

The petition was disposed of accordingly