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

The Petitioner filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”), seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a Rate Contract dated 23.11.2012.

The contract contained Clause 24, an arbitration agreement designating an officer of the Ministry of Law as the sole arbitrator.

The Petitioner invoked arbitration via a legal notice dated 03.05.2025.

A preliminary application seeking condonation of a 13-day delay in re-filing the petition was granted by the court for sufficient cause.

1. Whether the court should appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act based on a prima facie examination of the arbitration agreement.

2. Whether the parties can waive the specific qualifications of the arbitrator stipulated in the original agreement by mutual consent.

The court primarily applied Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024) 12 SCC 1.

This precedent, following the seven-judge bench decision in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re (2024) 6 SCC 1, establishes that judicial scrutiny under Section 11 is confined strictly to a prima facie examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement.

The court noted that earlier standards from Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn. regarding "accord and satisfaction" or "ex facie frivolous" disputes are no longer applicable at the referral stage, as these matters fall within the exclusive domain of the Arbitral Tribunal under the principle of competence-competence.

The court reaffirmed that its role under Section 11 is facilitative and procedural, intended to give effect to the parties' mutual intention to arbitrate when the agreed procedure fails.

Following the mandate of Krish Spinning, the court avoided any "laborious enquiry" into the merits or the validity of the claims, leaving such determinations to the tribunal.

During the proceedings, both parties were ad idem (in agreement) that the matter should be referred to arbitration under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).

Furthermore, both parties explicitly waived the requirement in Clause 24 that the arbitrator be an officer in the Ministry of Law.

Given the dispute was valued at approximately Rs. 10,00,000, the court determined that an independent advocate should be appointed to ensure an expeditious and neutral adjudication.

The arbitration will be conducted under the rules and fee schedule of the DIAC.

The arbitrator was directed to file the mandatory disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Act within one week.

The court held that all rights and contentions of the parties remain open for the arbitrator’s decision on the merits, and the appointment does not constitute an expression of opinion on the underlying controversy.