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

Tata Capital Ltd. petitioned under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes with the respondents.

The Court found that notice had been duly served, but the respondents did not appear.

The facility documents contained an arbitration clause providing for reference of disputes to a sole arbitrator.

Whether the Court could proceed to consider appointment of an arbitrator despite the respondents’ non-appearance after service.

Whether a sole arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Act, given the arbitration clause between the parties.

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

The Court relied on SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754, for that principle.

The parties’ arbitration clause provided for disputes connected with the facility documents to be referred to a sole arbitrator.

The Court recorded that the respondents had been duly served and had chosen not to participate, and therefore found no impediment to proceeding with the petition.

Applying the limited Section 11 enquiry, it noted that there was no dispute regarding the existence of a valid arbitration clause and concluded that appointment of a sole arbitrator was warranted.

It left questions of arbitrability and jurisdiction open for determination by the arbitrator.

The arbitration was directed to proceed under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with the arbitrator’s fees governed by its schedule; the arbitrator was also required to furnish the prescribed disclosure, and the parties were permitted to raise their pleas before him.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.