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

The Petitioner filed a petition 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 Customer Agreement dated May 8, 2024

Clause 18 of the Agreement contained an arbitration clause designating Delhi as the seat of arbitration and requiring disputes to be resolved by a mutually appointed sole arbitrator

On July 10, 2025, the Petitioner issued a notice under Section 21 of the Act to invoke arbitration

During the proceedings, the Respondent stated they had no objection to the matter being referred to arbitration

Whether the Court should appoint a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act based on the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement

The Court primarily applied Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, focusing on the limited scope of judicial intervention under Section 11(6-A)

The Referral Court’s mandate is strictly confined to a prima facie examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement

Complex issues such as "accord and satisfaction" or "ex facie frivolity" are reserved for the Arbitral Tribunal under the principle of competence-competence (Section 16) to ensure minimal judicial interference

The Court observed that the legal standard for judicial scrutiny under Section 11 is now res integra, meaning the Court must act in a facilitative and procedural capacity rather than an adjudicatory one

Citing Krish Spinning, the Court noted that it must avoid "laborious enquiry" into contested facts, as such deep dives are the exclusive domain of the Arbitral Tribunal

The Court highlighted that even tests like the “eye of the needle” are now discouraged in favor of modern arbitration principles that prioritize arbitral autonomy

In the present case, the Court found that the parties were ad idem (in agreement) regarding the referral to arbitration

Given the undisputed existence of Clause 18 and the fulfillment of the Section 21 notice requirement, the Court determined there was no impediment to the appointment

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

The Court held that all rights and contentions regarding the merits of the claims and counter-claims remain open for the Arbitrator's determination, and the Court expressed no opinion on the underlying controversy

The petition was disposed of accordingly