Scope of Section 11 Scrutiny is Confined to Prima Facie Existence of an Arbitration Agreement.

The Petitioner, Royal Drink Xpurt, and the Respondent, MS Central Secretariat Club, entered into a Catering-Cum Bar Services Agreement on November 15, 2019

Following disputes regarding the performance of the Agreement, the Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause (Clause 9) via a legal notice dated April 21, 2025, in accordance with Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The Petitioner subsequently filed the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Act seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator

Whether the court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act, should confine its enquiry to the prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement

Whether an independent arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate the disputes arising from the Agreement dated November 15, 2019

The court primarily applied Section 11(6) and Section 11(6-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

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

These precedents dictate that the Referral Court’s mandate is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement, leaving substantive issues like "accord and satisfaction" or "ex-facie frivolity" to the Arbitral Tribunal under the principle of competence-competence

The Court observed that Clause 9 of the Agreement specifically provided for the resolution of disputes through an independent arbitrator

Applying the principles from Krish Spinning, the Court noted that its role is facilitative and must avoid "laborious enquiry" into contested facts, which are reserved for the tribunal

Since the parties were ad idem (in agreement) that the disputes should be referred to arbitration and established the existence of the arbitration clause, the Court determined that the statutory requirements for judicial intervention under Section 11 were satisfied

The Court emphasized that referring the matter does not dilute the parties' rights to raise objections before the arbitrator, but rather upholds arbitral autonomy

The Court appointed Mr. Srivats Kaushal, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes estimated at approximately Rs. 1 crore

It directed that the arbitration be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC)

Ordered the arbitrator to file the mandatory disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Act

All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open for the arbitrator's decision