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

The Petitioners approached the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act"), seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from an Agreement to Sell dated 10.08.2021

The Agreement contained a dispute resolution clause designating Delhi as the seat of arbitration

The Petitioners invoked arbitration via a Section 21 notice on 26.08.2025

The Respondent opposed the petition, contending that the Petitioners were improperly conflating issues from a separate agreement and that no arbitrable dispute survived because the Petitioners had already accepted a refund, constituting "accord and satisfaction"

1. Whether the Court, at the stage of a Section 11 petition, should adjudicate objections regarding "accord and satisfaction" or the merits of the dispute

2. Whether a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed based on the prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement

The Court applied Section 11(6) and 11(6-A) of the Act, which limits the judicial role to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement

It relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s ruling in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024) 12 SCC 1, which established that the Referral Court must only conduct a prima facie scrutiny and avoid "laborious enquiry" into contested facts

The Court further applied the principle of arbitral autonomy and the negative effect of competence-competence under Section 16, which mandates that issues of "accord and satisfaction"—being mixed questions of law and fact—fall within the exclusive domain of the Arbitral Tribunal

The Court observed that its jurisdiction under Section 11 is circumscribed and facilitative, intended to resolve deadlocks in arbitrator appointments

Citing Krish Spinning, the Court noted that the legislative introduction of Section 11(6-A) overruled previous precedents that allowed courts to weed out "frivolous" or "meritless" claims at the referral stage

The Court reasoned that evaluating the Respondent's claim of "accord and satisfaction" (the refund) would require an appreciation of evidence that exceeds the "prima facie" standard

By appointing an arbitrator, the Court does not dilute the respondent’s defenses but ensures that the principle of minimum judicial interference is upheld, leaving the Tribunal to "rule" on such objections under Section 16

Consequently, as the arbitration agreement's existence was not in doubt, the matter was fit for reference

The Court held that all rights and contentions regarding the merits and "accord and satisfaction" remain open for the Arbitrator’s determination

The Arbitrator's fee was fixed in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Act

the parties were directed to share costs equally

The petition was disposed of accordingly