Section 11 inquiry is confined to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.

The Petitioner filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from the Work Order/Agreement for Construction dated 03.09.2025, read with the Purchase Order dated 28.08.2025 and Addendum dated 12.01.2026.

Clause 50 of the Work Order contained an arbitration agreement providing for arbitration of disputes relating to the contract and conferring jurisdiction on the courts at New Delhi.

The Petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement by notice dated 30.03.2026 in compliance with Section 21 of the Act.

The Respondent stated that it had no objection to the appointment of a sole arbitrator.

Whether the petition under Section 11(6) of the Act was maintainable in view of the arbitration agreement contained in Clause 50 of the Work Order.

Whether a sole arbitrator ought to be appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties when both parties were ad idem regarding reference to arbitration.

The Court applied Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers the Court to appoint an arbitrator in accordance with the parties’ arbitration agreement where the appointment procedure has not resulted in the constitution of the tribunal.

The Court also considered Section 21, concerning commencement of arbitral proceedings upon receipt of a request for reference to arbitration, and Section 12(2), requiring the arbitrator to furnish the prescribed disclosures.

The governing principle applied was that the scope of enquiry under Section 11 is limited to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.

Clause 50 of the Work Order constituted the arbitration agreement between the parties and subjected the disputes to the Act.

The Court found that Clause 50 expressly provided for arbitration of disputes arising out of or relating to the contract and that the Petitioner had validly invoked the clause through its notice dated 30.03.2026.

Since the existence of the arbitration agreement was undisputed and the Respondent had no objection to the appointment of a sole arbitrator, the statutory threshold under Section 11 was satisfied.

The Court therefore appointed Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate, as the sole arbitrator.

It preserved the parties’ right to raise objections concerning arbitrability and jurisdiction before the arbitral tribunal, consistent with the limited nature of the Section 11 inquiry.

The arbitrator was directed to furnish the disclosures required under Section 12(2) within three weeks of entering reference.

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 permitted to raise all pleas, including objections regarding arbitrability and jurisdiction, before the arbitrator, who was directed to decide the claims and counterclaims independently and uninfluenced by the observations in the Section 11 order.