Section 11 Inquiry Is Confined to the Prima Facie Existence of an Arbitration Agreement

The petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator for disputes arising from an agreement dated 5 October 2020, relying on Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract.

The Union of India, through the National Disaster Response Force, objected that no prima facie arbitration agreement existed between it and the petitioner in view of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 23 January 2019.

The petitioner sought liberty to implead Respondent No. 1 before the arbitrator, which the Court granted.

Respondent No. 2 did not appear, although service was sufficient.

1. Whether a sole arbitrator should be appointed in relation to Respondent No. 1 despite its objection that no prima facie arbitration agreement existed.

2. Whether a sole arbitrator should be appointed in relation to Respondent No. 2 where the existence of a valid arbitration agreement was undisputed.

Under Section 11(6) 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.

relying on SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754.

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

Issues including arbitrability, jurisdiction and limitation may be raised before the arbitrator for determination in accordance with law.

The Court treated the objection concerning Respondent No. 1 separately and granted the petitioner liberty to implead it before the arbitrator, without deciding the objection’s merits.

As to Respondent No. 2, the Court noted that the existence of a valid arbitration agreement was undisputed and found no impediment to appointing a sole arbitrator.

Consistent with the limited scope of Section 11(6), the Court left other objections and the merits of the disputes to the arbitrator.

The arbitration is to proceed under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with the arbitrator’s fees governed by its schedule.

The petitioner was granted liberty to implead Respondent No. 1 before the arbitrator; all pleas, including objections to arbitrability, jurisdiction and limitation, were left open for determination in accordance with law.

The petition and pending applications were disposed of.