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

The Petitioner, M/S Venkateshwara Edusupport Limited, 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 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 15.02.2024, which contained a dispute resolution clause (Clause 3.2) providing for amicable settlement and subsequent arbitration in New Delhi

The Petitioner invoked arbitration via notice on 10.10.2024

The Respondents filed a reply stating they had no objection to the reference of disputes to arbitration, though they contested certain factual assertions made in the petition

1. Whether the Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act to appoint a Sole Arbitrator given the existence of an arbitration agreement and the parties' consent

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

Precedent set by the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024)

Findings of the seven-judge bench in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re

Judicial intervention under Section 11 is confined strictly to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement, leaving substantive issues like "accord and satisfaction" or frivolousness to the Arbitral Tribunal under the principle of competence-competence

The Court observed that its role under Section 11 is facilitative and procedural rather than adjudicatory

Citing Krish Spinning, the Court noted that the legislative intent of Section 11(6-A) is to minimize judicial interference and ensure the expeditious appointment of arbitrators once the formal existence of an agreement is established

Since both parties were ad idem (in agreement) regarding the referral of disputes to arbitration and did not contest the existence of the MoU's arbitration clause, the Court found no legal impediment to the appointment

The Court clarified that all factual objections and contentions on merits reserved by the Respondents remain open for the Arbitrator to decide, as the Referral Court must not delve into contested facts or the "meritless" nature of claims at this nascent stage

The Court allowed the petition and appointed Ms. Iram Majid, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC)

The Court directed the Arbitrator to file a disclosure under Section 12(2) and ruled that the arbitration shall follow DIAC rules regarding proceedings and fees

All rights and contentions on merits were kept open for the Arbitral Tribunal