Section 11(6) review limited to prima facie arbitration agreement existence; other issues for Arbitral Tribunal.

The Petitioner, Kanhaiya Lal Charitable Trust, filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from Article 6 (particularly Clause 6.1) of the Fund-Raising Services Agreement dated 28.05.2019

Clause 6.1 of the agreement stipulated that any unresolved dispute would be settled by recourse to arbitration by a sole arbitrator appointed through mutual discussion

A notice under Section 21 of the Act was issued on 26.04.2025, and a reply was received on 24.06.2025

The Respondents' counsel informed the Court that the parties were willing to explore settlement through mediation

The valuation of the dispute was stated to be approximately Rs. 2,50,000/-

Whether a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, despite the parties expressing willingness to explore mediation

Whether the Court, while considering an application under Section 11(6) of the Act, should confine its scrutiny to the prima facie existence of a valid arbitration agreement

The court primarily applied Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the appointment of an Arbitrator

It relied on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in *SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning* (2024) 12 SCC 1, which, after considering *Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re* (2024) 6 SCC 1, delineated that judicial intervention under Section 11 is confined to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement, and not its validity or other contentious factual/legal issues

This standard of scrutiny under Section 11(6-A) is limited to the existence of an arbitration agreement on the basis of Section 7, and formally valid requirements

The Court noted that the "negative effect of competence-competence" requires that matters within the exclusive domain of the Arbitral Tribunal (like "accord and satisfaction") should not be looked into by the Referral Court, even for a prima facie determination

The Court noted that while mediation could benefit the parties, it should not impede the simultaneous appointment of an Arbitrator, ensuring that the arbitral process can proceed if mediation fails

Citing *Krish Spinning* [p.2-5], the Court reiterated that its role under Section 11(6) is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, without delving into contentious factual or legal issues like "accord and satisfaction" or the merits of the dispute

The Court emphasized that such issues, even if involving ex facie frivolity or dishonesty, are for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide post-constitution

This approach upholds arbitral autonomy, minimizes judicial interference, and ensures expeditious disposal of Section 11 applications, especially given the absence of an appeal against orders passed under this section

The Court found that based on the material on record, an arbitration agreement existed, and therefore an Arbitrator was warranted

The arbitration proceedings are to commence, with the Arbitrator furnishing disclosures as per Section 12(2) of the Act

The Arbitrator's fee will be in accordance with the Fourth Schedule or by mutual agreement, shared equally by the parties

All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved for the Arbitrator

The Court explicitly stated that the order should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy

The petition was disposed of accordingly