Scope of Section 11 Scrutiny is Limited to the Prima Facie Existence of the Arbitration Agreement

The Petitioner, Logix Technopark Pvt Ltd, filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator

The dispute arose from Clause 2.3 of a Supplementary Agreement dated 13.03.2019, which mandated arbitration by a retired High Court judge for disputes not resolved through 30 days of discussion

The Petitioner issued a Section 21 notice on 01.02.2024

The Respondents expressed no objection to the referral of the dispute to arbitration

The claims involve approximately Rs. 324 crores

1. Whether the Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act to appoint an arbitrator given the existing arbitration agreement

2. What is the permissible scope of judicial scrutiny by a Referral Court at the stage of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Section 11(6) and 11(6-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spg. [(2024) 12 SCC 1] and the seven-judge bench decision in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 Stamp Act, 1899, In re [(2024) 6 SCC 1]

Judicial intervention at the Section 11 stage is confined strictly to a prima facie examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement, leaving all other issues—including "accord and satisfaction," validity, and merit—to the Arbitral Tribunal under the principle of competence-competence

The Court observed that under the prevailing legal standard, its role is facilitative and procedural rather than adjudicatory

Citing Krish Spg., the Court noted that Section 11(6-A) limits judicial inquiry to the formal existence of the agreement (e.g., whether it is in writing) to prevent "laborious enquiry" that would infringe upon the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Section 16

The Court reasoned that by appointing an arbitrator, it upholds the parties' original intent and protects arbitral autonomy without expressing an opinion on the merits

Given the Respondents’ consent and the prima facie existence of the arbitration clause in the Supplementary Agreement, the Court found no impediment to the appointment

The Court held that all rights and contentions regarding claims and counter-claims remain open for the Arbitrator's adjudication

The Arbitrator was directed to file a disclosure under Section 12(2) within one week and the petition was disposed of accordingly