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

The Petitioner, Oriental Foundry Pvt. Ltd., entered into a contract (No. 2024/RS(l)/954/207/1940) with the Union of India on 01.08.2024

Disputes arose regarding the contract, leading the Petitioner to serve a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on 05.01.2026

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6)

and interim protection under Section 9 to stay the invocation of bank guarantees totaling approximately ₹14.4 Crore

The Respondent expressed no objection to the reference of the dispute to arbitration

Whether a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Act given the arbitration clause and the consent of the parties

Whether the Section 9 petition for interim relief regarding the stay of bank guarantees should be referred to the Arbitral Tribunal as an application under Section 17

The Court primarily applied Section 11(6) regarding the appointment of arbitrators and Section 7 regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement

It relied heavily on the Three-Judge Bench decision in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024), which established that judicial scrutiny under Section 11 is confined to a prima facie examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement

The Court also referenced the Seven-Judge Bench decision in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re, which restricted the Court from conducting "laborious enquiries" into the validity or "accord and satisfaction" of claims at the referral stage

The Court noted that the parties had a valid arbitration agreement under Clause 18 of the Contract, read with Railway Board Policy Clause 2905(b)

Following the mandate in Krish Spinning, the Court limited its interference to verifying the existence of the agreement and the failure of the appointment procedure

Since the Respondent did not contest the existence of the dispute or the agreement, the Court found it apposite to appoint an independent arbitrator to uphold "arbitral autonomy"

Regarding the Section 9 interim reliefs, the Court determined that since an Arbitrator was being appointed, the principle of minimal judicial interference required that the prayer for staying bank guarantees be adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17

It directed that the Section 9 petition be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Act to be decided by the Arbitrator

The Court ordered the interim protection granted on 12.12.2025 (staying coercive steps/bank guarantee invocation) to continue until the Arbitrator adjudicates the Section 17 application

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