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

The Petitioner approached the High Court of Delhi under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.

The dispute arose out of a Professional Services Agreement dated 26.08.2024, which contained an arbitration clause at Clause 18 designating Delhi as the seat.

The Petitioner invoked arbitration via statutory notices dated 30.01.2026 and 17.02.2026 under Section 21 of the Act.

Both parties consented to the referral of disputes to arbitration during the proceedings.

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

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

SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, which clarified that judicial interference under Section 11 is confined to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement.

Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re, regarding the shift from "accord and satisfaction" scrutiny to a more restrictive "facilitative" role.

The Court observed that its jurisdiction under Section 11 is "extremely circumscribed" and limited to verifying the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.

It reasoned that because the parties were ad idem (in agreement) regarding the referral to arbitration and the statutory notice under Section 21 had been satisfied, there was no legal impediment to appointing an arbitrator.

Following the Krish Spinning precedent, the Court declined to delve into the merits of the dispute or any contested factual issues, holding that such matters fall within the exclusive domain of the Arbitral Tribunal under the principle of competence-competence.

The Court directed that the arbitrator's fee be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Act and required a disclosure under Section 12(2).

All rights and contentions of the parties were left open for the Arbitrator to decide on merits.