Scope of judicial review under Section 11 is confined to prima facie examination of arbitration agreement existence.

The Petitioner, Tata Capital Limited, filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator

The dispute arose from a Term Loan Agreement dated 15.09.2023, which contained an arbitration clause (Clause 13) outlining the procedure for appointment

The Petitioner invoked arbitration via notice on 16.05.2024

Although the Respondents entered an initial appearance through counsel on 18.03.2026, they subsequent failed to file a reply or appear for the final hearings on 16.04.2026 and 11.05.2026

1. Whether a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed by the Court under Section 11 of the Act given the Respondents' failure to participate in the appointment process and the court proceedings

2. What is the scope of judicial scrutiny required by a Referral Court at the stage of a Section 11 application

Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding the court's power to appoint arbitrators when the agreed procedure fails

The judicial interference under Section 11 is confined strictly to the examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement as established in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning

Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re, which emphasizes arbitral autonomy and the "negative effect" of competence-competence, leaving substantive issues like "accord and satisfaction" or "frivolity" to the Arbitral Tribunal

The Court observed that because the Respondents failed to file a reply or appear despite being granted time, there was no impediment to referring the dispute to arbitration

Applying the standard from Krish Spinning, the Court noted that its role is "facilitative and procedural," intended only to give effect to the parties' intent to arbitrate without embarking on a "laborious enquiry" into the merits

The Court determined that a prima facie arbitration agreement existed under Clause 13 of the Agreement and that statutory notice under Section 21 had been fulfilled

The Court found that the jurisdictional competence to decide any further contentious factual or legal issues—such as the merits of the underlying claim of ~Rs. 12 Lakhs—rests solely with the Arbitral Tribunal

The Court held that the scope of Section 11 is limited to verifying the existence of the agreement and ensuring an expeditious appointment

The Arbitrator was directed to charge fees as per the Fourth Schedule of the Act and file disclosures under Section 12(2). All rights and contentions on merits were kept open for the Tribunal's determination