Section 11 Judicial Scrutiny is Confined to Prima Facie Examination of the Arbitration Agreement’s Existence.

The Petitioner filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act"), seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator

The dispute originated from a Lease Agreement dated 06.06.2018, which contained an arbitration clause under Article 10.2 specifying Delhi as the seat

The Petitioner invoked arbitration via a Section 21 notice on 23.08.2025

Despite being duly served, the Respondent failed to appear, leading the Court to proceed ex parte

The dispute is valued at approximately Rs. 17,00,000/-

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

2. What is the permissible scope of judicial scrutiny by a referral court at the Section 11 stage following recent Supreme Court precedents

The Court primarily applied Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding the appointment of arbitrators

SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024) 12 SCC 1, which refined the standard of scrutiny under Section 11 to be confined solely to the examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement

Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re (2024) 6 SCC 1, which emphasized the principle of arbitral autonomy and limited judicial interference

The Court reasoned that its role under Section 11 is facilitative and procedural rather than adjudicatory

Referring to Krish Spinning, the Court noted that the "standard of scrutiny" is restricted to a prima facie examination of the agreement’s existence as per Section 7, and does not include a "contested or laborious enquiry" into the validity or the merits of the dispute

The Court observed that tests such as the "eye of the needle" or "ex facie meritless" are no longer in strict conformity with modern arbitration principles, as issues like "accord and satisfaction" or "frivolity" fall within the exclusive domain of the Arbitral Tribunal under the competence-competence doctrine

In this case, since the arbitration agreement existed within the Lease Agreement and the statutory invocation was complete, the Court found no impediment to appointing an arbitrator

The Court appointed Mr. Kamal R. Digpaul, Advocate, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC)

It further directed that all rights and contentions on the merits of the claims remain open for the arbitrator's decision