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

The Petitioner and Respondent entered into a Deputation Services Agreement dated June 13, 2023

Clause 20 of the Agreement provided for dispute resolution through a sole arbitrator with the seat of arbitration in Delhi

the Petitioner invoked arbitration via legal notices dated July 23, 2025, and October 15, 2025, under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The Petitioner subsequently filed this petition under Section 11(6) of the Act seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator

During the proceedings, the Respondent expressed no objection to the referral of the dispute to arbitration

Whether the Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint a Sole Arbitrator based on the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement

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

SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, which integrated the seven-judge bench ruling in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re

the standard of scrutiny under Section 11 is confined strictly to the prime facie examination of the "existence" of the arbitration agreement, leaving questions of validity, "accord and satisfaction," and "ex facie frivolity" to the Arbitral Tribunal under the principle of competence-competence

The Court observed that its role under Section 11 is "facilitative and procedural," intended to give effect to the parties' mutual intention to arbitrate when the appointment mechanism fails

In alignment with Krish Spinning, the Court noted that it must "weed out non-existent arbitration agreements" but refrain from a "laborious enquiry" into contested facts or legal issues such as the merits of the claims

Given that the Arbitration Agreement (Clause 20) exists and the Respondent explicitly consented to the reference, the Court found the requirements for judicial intervention satisfied

The Court emphasized that all contentions regarding the merits remain open for the Arbitrator to decide, ensuring arbitral autonomy and minimum judicial interference

The Court appointed Mr. Debashish Banerjee, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes, subject to mandatory disclosures under Section 12(2) of the Act

The Arbitrator’s fee shall be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Act, and the petition was disposed of with all rights and contentions of the parties kept open