Scope of Judicial Review Under Section 11 is Confined Solely to Prima Facie Existence of Arbitration Agreement

The Petitioner seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator filed this petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The disputes arose from a Service Agreement dated 10.08.2022 and an Addendum dated 23.02.2023, both of which contained arbitration clauses

The Petitioner invoked arbitration via a legal notice dated 20.01.2026 under Section 21 of the Act

While the Respondents did not oppose the reference to arbitration, they suggested an initial attempt at mediation

1. Whether the Court should appoint a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act given the existence of an arbitration agreement and a failed appointment procedure

2. Whether the Court’s scope of inquiry at the Section 11 stage extends beyond a prima facie examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement

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

It primarily relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024), which followed the seven-judge bench decision in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re (2024), establishing that the court's jurisdiction under Section 11 is confined strictly to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement

These precedents effectively overruled the "eye of the needle" and "accord and satisfaction" tests, reserving complex factual or legal disputes for the Arbitral Tribunal under the principle of competence-competence (Section 16)

The Court noted that the Agreement and its Addendum explicitly provided for arbitration in New Delhi for disputes related to non-payment of fees

Applying the standard set in Krish Spinning, the Court emphasized that its role is purely facilitative and procedural to resolve deadlocks in appointment procedures

The Court found that once the formal existence of a written arbitration agreement is established and notice under Section 21 is served, the Court must refrain from a "laborious enquiry" into the merits or non-arbitrability of claims, as such matters fall within the exclusive domain of the Arbitral Tribunal

Since both parties were ad idem regarding the reference to arbitration and the existence of the clause was undisputed, the Court determined that the statutory requirements were met

The Court held that the scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11 is limited to the existence of the agreement

It directed the parties to first attempt mediation through the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre (Samadhan) for a period of four weeks before the Arbitrator enters the reference

The Arbitrator’s fee shall be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Act

The petition was disposed of with all rights and contentions of the parties kept open for the Tribunal