Referral Court under Section 11 must confine its scrutiny to the prima facie existence of a valid arbitration agreement.

The Petitioner filed a petition under Section 11(6)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator pursuant to a Service Agreement dated 18.07.2022

Clause 15 of the Agreement contains an arbitration clause providing that disputes be referred to a sole arbitrator in Delhi

The Petitioner invoked arbitration via a Section 21 notice dated 11.07.2023

The Respondent replied on 19.07.2023, acknowledging the existence of the arbitration clause

During the hearing, the Respondent’s counsel did not dispute the clause's existence and consented to the reference, subject to the right to raise permissible legal objections

1. Whether a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11 of the Act given the admitted existence of an arbitration agreement

The court applied Section 11(6) and Section 11(6-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which governs the appointment of arbitrators

The court relied extensively on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, which clarified that judicial intervention under Section 11 is confined strictly to a prima facie examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement

This doctrine aligns with the principle of "competence-competence" and the seven-judge bench ruling in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re, emphasizing minimum judicial interference at the referral stage

The court reasoned that its role under Section 11 is facilitative and procedural rather than adjudicatory

Following the standards in Krish Spinning, the court limited its scrutiny to verifying the formal existence of the agreement (i.e., that it is in writing)

Since both parties admitted to the existence of Clause 15 of the Service Agreement, the court found no impediment to referring the matter to arbitration

The court noted that any complex or "mixed questions of law and fact," such as "accord and satisfaction," must be left to the Arbitral Tribunal to decide under Section 16 of the Act, as the referral court should not engage in a "laborious enquiry" at this nascent stage

The court held that the arbitration shall be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) in accordance with its rules and fee schedule

All rights and contentions of the parties, including claims and counter-claims, remain open for adjudication by the Arbitrator

The petition was disposed of with a direction to the Registry to notify the Arbitrator