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

The Petitioner filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator for disputes arising out of a contract dated 21 November 2017 concerning consultancy services for feasibility studies and Detailed Project Reports relating to road stretches in Bihar.

Clauses 9.2 of the GCC and SCC contained the arbitration agreement.

The Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by notice dated 26 December 2024 under Section 21 of the Act.

The Respondents did not dispute the existence of a valid arbitration agreement or the maintainability of the petition.

During the proceedings, the Respondents expressed willingness to explore an amicable settlement.

1. Whether a sole arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for adjudication of the disputes arising from the contract dated 21 November 2017.

2. Whether the parties should be granted time to explore an amicable settlement before the arbitrator enters upon the reference.

The Court applied Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, under which the Court may appoint an arbitrator where the agreed appointment procedure has failed or requires judicial intervention.

At the Section 11 stage, the Court’s enquiry is confined to examining the prima facie existence of a valid arbitration agreement.

Section 21 governs commencement of arbitral proceedings through a request for reference to arbitration, while Section 12(2) requires the appointed arbitrator to furnish the prescribed disclosure before proceeding with the arbitration.

The arbitration agreement contained in Clauses 9.2 of the GCC and SCC governed the parties’ disputes.

The Court found that the contract contained a prima facie valid arbitration agreement and that the Petitioner had duly invoked it by notice dated 26 December 2024.

Since the Respondents raised no objection regarding the existence of the arbitration clause or the maintainability of the petition, there was no impediment to appointing a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6).

The Court nevertheless permitted the parties to pursue settlement negotiations for three weeks, directing that the arbitrator enter upon the reference only after four weeks from the date of the order.

It preserved the parties’ right to raise objections concerning arbitrability and jurisdiction before the arbitrator.

The arbitration was directed to be conducted under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with fees payable according to the DIAC Schedule of Fees.

The parties were granted three weeks to explore an amicable settlement, and the arbitrator was directed to enter upon the reference after four weeks from the order dated 14 September 2026.

The petition and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.