Section 11 judicial scrutiny is confined to a prima facie examination of the arbitration agreement's existence.

The Petitioner filed an application under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act”], seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a Property Management Service Agreement dated 27.07.2022

A notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Act was issued on 03.12.2023

Despite the petition remaining pending since 2024 and the Court permitting service through publication via an order dated 04.12.2025, the Respondents failed to enter an appearance

The Petitioner placed on record the affidavit of service confirming the newspaper publication

The total claimed value of the dispute is approximately Rs. 25 Lakhs

1. Whether the non-appearance of a respondent, despite service by publication, acts as an impediment to the Court’s jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act.

2. What is the permissible scope and standard of judicial scrutiny by a referral court at the stage of Section 11(6) of the Act.

The Court primarily applied Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which governs the appointment of arbitrators when the parties’ agreed procedure fails

It relied on the three-judge bench decision in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024) 12 SCC 1, which interpreted the seven-judge bench ruling in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re (2024) 6 SCC 1

These precedents establish that judicial interference under Section 11 is confined strictly to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement

The Court further applied the principle of "competence-competence," noting that contested issues of fact or law, such as "accord and satisfaction," fall within the exclusive domain of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16

The Court observed that since the Respondents failed to appear despite being served through publication, the proceedings—which are summary in nature—could not be delayed indefinitely

In determining whether to appoint an arbitrator, the Court adhered to the restrictive standard of scrutiny mandated by Krish Spinning, noting that its role is merely facilitative and procedural

The Court highlighted that the 2015 amendment (Section 11(6-A)) legislatively overruled earlier broader standards of scrutiny, limiting the enquiry to whether a written agreement exists

The Court reasoned that any "laborious enquiry" into the merits or validity of the claims would undermine arbitral autonomy and the legislative intent of minimum judicial interference

Since a prima facie arbitration agreement existed between the parties, the Court found it appropriate to refer the dispute to a tribunal

Exercising its powers under Section 11, the Court appointed Mr. Alakh Kumar, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties

The Court directed that the arbitration be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and in accordance with its rules and fee schedule

The Arbitrator was directed to provide mandatory disclosures under Section 12(2) of the Act within one week of the reference

All rights and contentions on the merits of the case were kept open for the Arbitrator's determination