Scope of Section 11 Scrutiny Confined Solely to Prima Facie Existence of Arbitration Agreement

The Petitioner filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a Services Management Solutions Agreement dated 06.04.2023.

The Agreement contained a dispute resolution clause (Clause 19) providing for arbitration in New Delhi.

The Petitioner invoked arbitration via a legal notice on 09.02.2026.

The Respondent filed a reply on 29.04.2026, admitting the existence of the arbitration agreement and consenting to the appointment of an arbitrator while denying the underlying liability and factual claims of the Petitioner.

1. Whether the Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act, should restrict its inquiry to the prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement.

2. Whether a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed given the mutual consent of the parties regarding the existence of the arbitration clause.

The Court primarily applied Section 11 and Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The "standard of scrutiny under Section 11 is confined to the examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement" and emphasized the principle of "competence-competence" and arbitral autonomy (SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning).

Judicial intervention is limited to prima facie scrutiny to "weed out non-existent arbitration agreements" (Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re).

The Court observed that since the Respondent did not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement or the invocation of the clause, the scope of judicial scrutiny was "extremely circumscribed".

Following the Krish Spinning mandate, the Court refused to embark on an adjudication of the "contentious factual or legal issues" raised in the Respondent's reply, asserting that such matters fall within the exclusive domain of the Arbitral Tribunal.

The Court reasoned that its role is merely facilitative—to give effect to the parties' original intent to arbitrate once the internal appointment mechanism fails.

It held that issues such as the merits of the claims or "accord and satisfaction" must be left for the arbitrator to decide under Section 16 of the Act.

The Court appointed Mr. Jayant Tripathi, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes; the arbitrator was directed to provide disclosures under Section 12(2), and fees were set in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Act.

The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the case, leaving all rights and contentions open for the tribunal.