Scope of Section 11 Inquiry Is Limited to Prima Facie Existence of Arbitration Agreement

The Petitioner, Tata Capital Limited, filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator

The disputes arose from a Loan-cum-Guarantee Agreement dated 19.08.2023, which contained an arbitration clause (Clause 12) stipulating that disputes be settled by a sole arbitrator who must be a retired judge or a lawyer with at least 10 years of experience

The Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause via a Section 21 notice dated 13.09.2025

Both parties agreed during the proceedings that the disputes should be referred to a Sole Arbitrator

1. Whether the Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act, is required to limit its scrutiny to the prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement

2. Whether a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed in view of the valid arbitration agreement and the parties' mutual consent

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

judicial intervention under Section 11 is confined strictly to examining the existence of the arbitration agreement, rather than its validity or contested facts [SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024)]

principle of "competence-competence" where the Arbitral Tribunal has the primary authority to rule on its own jurisdiction and issues such as "accord and satisfaction"

The Court observed that the parties were ad idem (in agreement) regarding the referral of disputes to a Sole Arbitrator

Following the mandate in Krish Spinning, the Court determined that its role at the Section 11 stage is facilitative and procedural, intended to overcome deadlocks in the appointment process without delving into the merits or frivolousness of the claims

The Court verified that a valid arbitration agreement existed in Clause 12 and that the mandatory statutory notice under Section 21 had been served

It noted that the specific eligibility criteria for the arbitrator (retired judge or experienced lawyer) mentioned in the agreement must be respected

Consequently, as the formal requirements were met and the dispute fell within the scope of the clause, the Court found no impediment to appointing the arbitrator

The Court held that all contentions regarding the merits of the claims are to be decided by the Arbitrator

The Arbitrator was directed to provide disclosures under Section 12(2) and was entitled to fees as per the Fourth Schedule of the Act

The petition was disposed of accordingly