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

The Petitioner filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a Vendor Agreement dated 16.09.2024

Clause 6 of the said Agreement provided for arbitration in New Delhi governed by the Act

The Petitioner invoked arbitration via a Section 21 notice on 09.10.2025

Despite multiple attempts at service, including dasti service permitted by the Court after the Respondent’s initial refusal, the Respondent continued to refuse service and failed to enter an appearance

The Court proceeded to hear the matter based on the Petitioner's affidavit of service and photographs evidencing the attempted service

1. Whether the Court can proceed with the appointment of an arbitrator when the Respondent has willfully refused service of the petition?

2. What is the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny for a Referral Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

The Court primarily applied Section 11(6) and Section 11(6-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which govern the appointment of arbitrators

It relied heavily on the three-Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024), which incorporated the principles from the seven-Judge Bench in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re

These precedents establish that judicial interference under Section 11 is confined strictly to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement and does not extend to "accord and satisfaction" or the merits of the dispute

The Court first determined that service upon the Respondent was duly effected through the Petitioner’s dasti efforts, holding that the Respondent's refusal to accept service did not impede the Court’s power to appoint an arbitrator

Moving to the legal merits, the Court analyzed the transition in the standard of scrutiny under Section 11. It noted that post-Krish Spinning, the "eye of the needle" and "ex facie meritless" tests have been narrowed to ensure arbitral autonomy

The Court reasoned that its role is purely facilitative—to resolve deadlocks in the appointment process—and it must avoid "laborious enquiry" into contested facts, which are reserved for the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16

Finding that a valid arbitration agreement existed in Clause 6 of the Vendor Agreement and that the arbitration had been properly invoked, the Court concluded there was no legal impediment to the appointment

The Court directed the Arbitrator to provide mandatory disclosures under Section 12(2) and fixed the fees in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Act

The parties were directed to share the arbitral costs and fees equally

The Court clarified that all rights and contentions on the merits of the claims/counter-claims remain open for the Arbitrator’s determination