Section 11 Judicial Scrutiny is Confined to Prima Facie Examination of Arbitration Agreement's Existence

The Petitioner approached the High Court of Delhi under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from an Agreement dated 10.12.2022.

The Agreement contained Clause 25, which mandated a two-tier dispute resolution process: initial reference to a Dispute Redressal Committee (DRC) followed by arbitration if the DRC failed to decide or if a party remained dissatisfied.

The Petitioner issued a Section 21 notice on 03.11.2025.

The Respondent raised certain objections in a counter-affidavit but conceded that these could be urged before the Arbitrator given the court’s limited jurisdiction under Section 11.

1. Whether the Court should appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 when disputes have arisen and the arbitration clause existence is not in doubt.

2. What is the scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in light of recent Supreme Court precedents?

Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding the appointment of arbitrators.

Judicial intervention under Section 11 is confined strictly to a prima facie examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement.

The "negative effect of competence-competence" requires that issues such as "accord and satisfaction" or "ex-facie meritless" claims be left to the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16.

The Court observed that since the parties were ad idem regarding the existence of the arbitration clause (Clause 25) and the necessity of referring the dispute to a Sole Arbitrator, the statutory requirements were met.

Applying the Krish Spinning standard, the Court held that its role is facilitative and procedural, intended only to resolve deadlocks in the appointment process without embarking on an adjudication of contentious facts or law.

The Court noted that the Respondent's objections in the counter-affidavit were preserved but must be addressed by the Arbitral Tribunal, as the court must not conduct a "laborious enquiry" at this nascent stage.

The Court also respected the specific contractual requirement in Clause 25 that the arbitrator must be a Graduate Engineer of a certain rank.

The Court allowed the petition and appointed Mr. Ganesh Chandra Kabi (Engineer) as the Sole Arbitrator.

The Arbitrator was directed to furnish disclosures under Section 12(2) and follow the fee structure of the Fourth Schedule of the Act.

All rights and contentions on merits were left open for the Arbitrator’s determination.