Section 11 courts need only examine the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.

GVPL Technologies Private Limited filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking resolution of disputes arising from Product Development Agreements dated 28 March 2023 and 21 February 2024.

The dispute concerned alleged non-payment by Createcomm Tech Private Limited.

Although notice had been issued, the respondent neither appeared nor filed a reply; the Court found service sufficient.

The petitioner relied on Clause 20.8(c) of the agreements, which provided for arbitration in New Delhi.

1. Whether the agreements contained a prima facie arbitration agreement sufficient for the Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act

2. Whether, in the circumstances, a sole arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate the parties’ disputes

Under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court’s enquiry at the appointment stage is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.

Clause 20.8(c) of the parties’ agreements provided for arbitration in accordance with rules framed under the Act, with the arbitration to be held in New Delhi and conducted in English.

The appointed arbitrator was required to furnish the disclosures contemplated by Section 12(2) of the Act.

The Court examined Clause 20.8(c) and found that it prima facie constituted an arbitration agreement between the parties.

Given that finding, and the respondent’s non-appearance despite sufficient service, the Court found no impediment to appointing a sole arbitrator.

It left all issues, including impleadment, arbitrability and jurisdiction, open for determination by the arbitrator.

The arbitration was directed to proceed under the aegis and rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), with fees as per the DIAC Schedule of Fees.

The arbitrator was to enter upon the reference within three weeks and furnish the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) within three weeks of doing so.

The arbitrator was to decide the disputes independently, uninfluenced by the Court’s observations.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.