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

The Petitioner, Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator

The dispute arose from a Loan Agreement dated 16.07.2024, which contained an arbitration clause (Clause 8.2) designating Delhi as the seat of arbitration

The Petitioner invoked arbitration via a Section 21 notice dated 07.06.2025

Despite being served via email and courier, as evidenced by an affidavit of service dated 10.03.2026, the Respondents failed to appear before the Court

1. Whether the Court should appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act given the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and the failure of the parties to mutually appoint one

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

The scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11 is strictly confined to a prima facie examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement, leaving questions of validity, "accord and satisfaction," or frivolousness to the Arbitral Tribunal under the principle of competence-competence

Precedent set by the Supreme Court 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)

The Court noted that its jurisdiction under Section 11 is "extremely circumscribed" and facilitative in nature

It verified that the Loan Agreement contained a valid arbitration clause and that the Petitioner had satisfied the statutory requirement of issuing a notice under Section 21

Following the mandate in Krish Spinning, the Court declined to embark on an adjudication of any contentious factual or legal issues, asserting that such matters belong to the domain of the arbitrator

Since the Respondents did not appear to contest the existence of the agreement despite due service, the Court found no impediment to exercising its power to resolve the deadlock in the appointment process

The Court directed the arbitrator to provide requisite disclosures under Section 12(2) and ruled that fees would be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Act

All rights and contentions on merits remain open for the arbitrator’s decision

The petition was disposed of with instructions to communicate the order to the appointed arbitrator