Section 11 inquiry is confined to the prima facie existence of a valid arbitration agreement.

Tata Capital Ltd. filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking resolution of disputes arising from a loan agreement with Pyar Mohd; the judgment records the agreement date as “21.20.2023”.

Tata Capital alleged default in repayment and relied on Clause 13, which provided for arbitration of disputes under the facility documents.

Service on the respondent was found sufficient, but he did not appear.

The petitioner sought appointment of a sole arbitrator.

1. Whether a valid arbitration agreement prima facie existed between the parties for purposes of the petition under Section 11.

2. Whether the Court should appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes.

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

Section 12(2) requires the appointed arbitrator to furnish the requisite disclosure.

The judgment cites no precedents; it also directs that the arbitration proceed under the Act and the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).

The Court considered Clause 13 of the loan agreement and found that, prima facie, it constituted a valid arbitration clause.

Having found no impediment to appointment, the Court appointed a sole arbitrator, while leaving all pleas—including arbitrability and jurisdiction—for the arbitrator to decide independently.

The arbitration is to be conducted under DIAC’s rules and aegis, with fees as per its schedule; the petition was disposed of accordingly.