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

The Petitioner, Tata Capital Limited, filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a Loan-cum-Guarantee Agreement dated 26.09.2024

Clause 12 of the Agreement provided for arbitration by a sole arbitrator to be appointed according to a specific procedure

The Petitioner invoked arbitration via a legal notice dated 30.10.2025

Despite being served, the Respondents failed to appear before the High Court or file a reply

1. Whether the Court should appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, given the failure of the parties to agree on an appointment

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

Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers the Court to appoint an arbitrator when the agreed appointment procedure fails

The court primarily applied Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers the Court to appoint an arbitrator when the agreed appointment procedure fails; principles established by the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024), which clarified that judicial interference under Section 11 is confined strictly to examining the existence of the arbitration agreement

The court also noted the "competence-competence" principle and the legislative intent behind Section 11(6-A) to minimize judicial interference and foster arbitral autonomy

The Court observed that a valid arbitration agreement existed under Clause 12 of the Agreement and that the Petitioner had complied with the statutory notice requirement under Section 21

Applying the standard from Krish Spinning, the Court held that its jurisdiction is "extremely circumscribed" and limited to a prima facie examination of the agreement's existence

The Court determined that since the Respondents failed to contest the petition, there was no impediment to the appointment

The Court emphasized that all substantive disputes, including issues of "accord and satisfaction" or meritless claims, must be left to the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16, as the Referral Court should not perform a "laborious enquiry" at this nascent stage

The Court directed the arbitrator to provide disclosures under Section 12(2) and ruled that fees would be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the A&C Act. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open for the arbitrator's merit-based adjudication