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

The Petitioner approached the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator

The disputes arose from two Fund Raising Agreements dated 08.04.2024 and 16.04.2024, both featuring an identical arbitration clause (Article 6.1) designating New Delhi as the seat

The Petitioner invoked arbitration via a Section 21 notice on 18.07.2025

The Respondent expressed no objection to arbitration but requested a preliminary mediation attempt given the nature of the dispute

1. Whether the Court should appoint a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act when a valid arbitration agreement exists and a Section 21 notice has been served

2. Whether the Court’s jurisdiction under Section 11 is confined to 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 appointment of arbitrators

Judicial intervention under Section 11 is confined strictly to the examination of the "existence" of an arbitration agreement rather than its validity or "accord and satisfaction" as per SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024)

The Court also referenced the seven-bench judgment in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re, emphasizing the principle of arbitral autonomy and "competence-competence" under Section 16

The Court noted that the existence of the Arbitration Clause (Article 6.1) was undisputed and that the Petitioner had complied with the statutory requirement of a Section 21 notice

Following the "eye of the needle" doctrine as refined in Krish Spinning, the Court determined that its role is facilitative and procedural, meant only to resolve the deadlock in appointment

Since both parties were ad idem (in agreement) regarding arbitration and the existence of the agreement was clear, the Court found no impediment to the appointment

Regarding the Respondent's request for settlement, the Court balanced the statutory mandate with party autonomy by directing a time-bound mediation before the arbitrator entered the reference

The parties were directed to first appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre 'SAMADHAN' on 30.04.2026 to explore an amicable settlement within four weeks; If mediation fails, the Arbitrator shall proceed as per the Fourth Schedule of the Act

The Court held that all contentions on merits remain open for adjudication by the Arbitral Tribunal