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

The Petitioner seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, based on an arbitration clause (Clause 16) in a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 15.03.2016

The Petitioner served a Section 21 notice on 17.09.2025

The Respondent opposed the petition on grounds of limitation, alleging the cause of action arose in 2018, and argued that the disputes were resolved through prior proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

The Respondent further contended the petition was filed to harass him as a senior citizen

1. Whether the Referral Court under Section 11 of the Act can adjudicate on issues of limitation and "accord and satisfaction" or if its scope is limited to examining the existence of the arbitration agreement.

The Court applied Section 11(6) and 11(6-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which confines judicial scrutiny to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement

It relied heavily on the Supreme Court precedents in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024) and Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re (2024), which established that the principles of "accord and satisfaction" and "deadwood" (ex-facie meritless claims) are matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal under the principle of competence-competence

The Court reasoned that following the Seven-Judge Bench decision in Interplay, the standard of scrutiny under Section 11 is "confined to the examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement" and does not include a contested or laborious enquiry into the validity or limitation of claims

The Court noted that earlier tests such as the "eye of the needle" or weeding out "frivolous disputes" have been overruled to protect arbitral autonomy

Therefore, the Respondent’s objections regarding the "vintage" of the claim (limitation) and previous litigation (accord and satisfaction) are mixed questions of law and fact to be determined by the Arbitrator under Section 16, rather than the Referral Court at the referral stage

The Court appointed Mr. Kamil Khan, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator

The petition was disposed of with directions for the arbitrator to provide disclosures under Section 12(2) and for the parties to share costs equally