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

The Petitioner and Respondent entered into a Service Agreement dated 16.01.2023, which contained an arbitration clause (Clause 28) designating New Delhi as the seat

Following disputes, the Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause via a Legal Notice dated 08.10.2025 under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The Petitioner subsequently approached the High Court under Section 11 of the Act for the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator

The Respondent expressed no objection to the referral of disputes to arbitration

1. Whether the Court should appoint an arbitrator based on the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement under Section 11 of the Act

2. Whether the scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11 is limited solely to examining the existence of the agreement rather than its validity or the merits of the dispute

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

The Court relied heavily on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024), which streamlined judicial intervention by overruling previous standards set in Vidya Drolia

The court also referenced the seven-judge bench decision in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re, which established that the referral court's role is confined to a prima facie examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement

The Court noted that the legal position regarding Section 11 is now res integra, focusing on "minimal judicial interference"

It reasoned that under Section 11(6-A), the court’s role is facilitative and limited to weeding out non-existent agreements without embarking on "laborious enquiry" into issues like "accord and satisfaction"

The Court applied these principles to the present facts, noting that Clause 28 of the Agreement explicitly provided for arbitration. Since a Section 21 notice was served and the Respondent consented to the referral, the Court found its duty was merely to give effect to the parties' mutual intention to arbitrate

The Court emphasized that all contested factual and legal issues remain within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal under the principle of competence-competence

The Court appointed Ms. Nandita Rao, Senior Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes valued at approximately Rs. 40 Lakhs. The arbitrator was directed to charge fees as per the Fourth Schedule and file disclosures under Section 12(2). All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open for the tribunal's adjudication