Scope of Section 11 Scrutiny is Limited to Prima Facie Examination of Arbitration Agreement's 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 from a Franchise Agreement dated September 13, 2021, which contained an arbitration clause (Clause 23.2) designating New Delhi as the seat and venue

A Section 21 notice invoking arbitration was issued on February 12, 2025

The parties were in agreement (*ad idem*) regarding the referral of the dispute, valued at approximately Rs. 20 Lakhs, to arbitration

Whether a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Act given the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and the failure of the parties to appoint one through the agreed procedure

What is the permissible scope of judicial scrutiny by a Referral Court at the pre-referral stage under Section 11 of the Act

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

It relied heavily on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in *SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning*, which clarified that under Section 11(6-A), judicial interference is confined strictly to an examination of the *existence* of the arbitration agreement

The Court also referenced the seven-bench decision in *Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re*, reinforcing the principle of "competence-competence" and minimal judicial interference

The Court observed that its role under Section 11 is facilitative and procedural, intended to resolve deadlocks in the appointment process

Citing *Krish Spinning*, the Court noted that the examination is limited to a *prima facie* scrutiny of the existence of the agreement and does not include contested or laborious enquiries into issues like "accord and satisfaction" or "ex-facie frivolity," which are reserved for the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16

In the present case, since the existence of the arbitration clause in the Franchise Agreement was not in dispute and both parties consented to the reference, the Court found it appropriate to exercise its power to maintain arbitral autonomy

The arbitration is to be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) in accordance with its rules and fee schedule

The Arbitrator was directed to file a disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Act

All rights and contentions on merits were kept open for the Tribunal's determination