Scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11 is limited to prima facie examination of arbitration agreement existence.

The Petitioner, Prime Decor Furniture and Interiors LLP, entered into two identical Carrying and Forwarding Agreements dated March 8, 2022, with the Respondents, Mohit Rubber Foam India Private Limited and American Bedding Private Limited, respectively

Clause 44 of the Agreement provided for dispute resolution via a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Company

Following disputes, the Petitioner invoked arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, via notice dated January 7, 2025

The Petitioner subsequently filed the present petitions under Section 11(6) of the Act seeking the appointment of an independent arbitrator

The Respondents expressed no objection to the reference

1. Whether the Court should appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act given the existence of an arbitration agreement and the Respondents' consent

2. What is the standard of judicial scrutiny required at the pre-referral stage under Section 11 of the Act in light of recent Supreme Court precedents

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

The court heavily relied on the standard of scrutiny established by the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024), which incorporated the seven-judge bench ruling in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re (2024)

These precedents dictate that judicial intervention under Section 11 is confined strictly to a prima facie examination of the "existence" of an arbitration agreement rather than its validity or the merits of the dispute

The court also noted the principle of "competence-competence" under Section 16, which reserves contested factual and legal issues, such as "accord and satisfaction," for the Arbitral Tribunal

The Court observed that under the prevailing legal regime established in Krish Spinning, the referral court's role is facilitative and extremely circumscribed

Since the Agreements contained a valid arbitration clause (Clause 44) and the Petitioner had complied with the mandatory Section 21 notice requirements, the Court's only duty was to give effect to the parties' intent to arbitrate

The Court highlighted that any contentious issues or "ex-facie frivolity" are matters to be adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal, as the referral court must avoid a "laborious enquiry" that would undermine arbitral autonomy and the legislative intent of minimum judicial interference

Given that both parties were ad idem regarding the reference, the Court found no legal impediment to exercising its power

The Court held that since a prima facie arbitration agreement exists and statutory prerequisites are met, the matter must be referred

The Arbitrator was directed to provide disclosures under Section 12(2) and fees were fixed as per the Fourth Schedule of the Act; All rights and contentions on merits were left open for the Tribunal's determination