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

The Petitioner filed five petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator

The disputes arose from five similarly worded Development Agreements dated June 30, 2011, each containing an identical arbitration clause (Clause 20)

The Petitioner invoked arbitration via legal notices dated December 21, 2022

While the Respondent did not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement, it contended that the claims were barred by the law of limitation

The Court previously directed the parties to seek a consensus on an arbitrator or explore settlement, but the parties informed the Court they were unable to reach an agreement

Whether the Court should appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) when the Respondent raises a plea of limitation

Whether the scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11 is limited to the prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement

The Court applied Section 11(6) and 11(6-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

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

These precedents establish that the referral court's jurisdiction is confined strictly to a *prima facie* examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement, leaving issues of "accord and satisfaction," limitation, and merits to the Arbitral Tribunal under the principle of competence-competence

The Court observed that while the Respondent raised objections regarding limitation, such issues fall within the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal, especially since the petitions were filed within three years of the notice invoking arbitration

Following the mandate in *Krish Spinning*, the Court held that judicial interference at the Section 11 stage must be minimal and facilitative

Since the existence of the arbitration agreement (Clause 20) was not in dispute and the parties failed to mutually appoint an arbitrator as per the contract, the Court’s role was limited to resolving the deadlock

The Court declined to conduct a "laborious enquiry" into the merits or the plea of limitation, noting that the Arbitral Tribunal is better equipped to decide such mixed questions of law and fact after appreciating full evidence

The Court held that the issue of limitation is a matter for the Tribunal to decide

The arbitration will be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) following its rules and fee schedule

All rights and contentions regarding the merits of the claims were left open for the arbitrator's determination