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

The Petitioner, Ramanand Mahto, filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator

The dispute arose from a Work Order dated 02.01.2021, which contained an arbitration clause (Clause 19) providing for dispute resolution in Delhi/New Delhi

The Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause through a legal notice under Section 21 of the Act dated 05.12.2024

The claims are valued at approximately Rs. 15 lakhs

During the hearing, counsel for both parties reached a consensus (ad idem) to refer the matter to a Sole Arbitrator

Whether the court’s jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement

Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding the judicial appointment of arbitrators

Supreme Court’s decision in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024) 12 SCC 1, which integrated the principles from the seven-judge Bench in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re (2024) 6 SCC 1

The referral court must confine its scrutiny to the "prima facie existence" of the arbitration agreement and leave all other contested issues—including "accord and satisfaction," non-arbitrability, or frivolity—to the Arbitral Tribunal under the doctrine of competence-competence

The court reasoned that its role under Section 11 is facilitative and procedural, intended to overcome deadlocks in the appointment process

By applying the standards set in Krish Spinning, the court noted that it must not conduct a "contested or laborious enquiry," as such depth is reserved for the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16

The court emphasized that even tests like the "eye of the needle" are now deprecated in favor of arbitral autonomy and minimal judicial interference

In this instance, since the arbitration agreement in the Work Order was undisputed and both parties consented to the appointment during the proceedings, the court determined that the statutory requirements for referral were satisfied

The court directed the Arbitrator to file the mandatory disclosure under Section 12(2) within one week

It ordered that the parties share arbitral costs and fees equally

The court held that all rights and contentions regarding the merits of the claims/counter-claims remain open for adjudication by the Arbitrator, and the present order does not constitute an opinion on the merits of the dispute