Section 11 judicial scrutiny is strictly confined 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

The dispute arose from Clause 10 of a Work Order dated 28.07.2021

The Petitioner served a notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Act on 05.07.2025

During the proceedings, the Respondent (Government of NCT of Delhi) admitted the existence of the arbitration agreement

The total value of the claims is approximately Rs. 80 lakhs

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

It relied heavily on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024)

the seven-judge bench decision in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re (2024)

These authorities establish that the scope of judicial inquiry under Section 11 is confined strictly to a prima facie examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement

The court further applied the principle of "arbitral autonomy" and the "negative effect of competence-competence," which mandates that issues of "accord and satisfaction" or the merits of a dispute are the exclusive domain of the Arbitral Tribunal

The Court noted that its role at the Section 11 stage is facilitative and procedural rather than adjudicatory

Since the Respondent explicitly stated there was no dispute regarding the existence of the arbitration clause, the Court held there was no impediment to referring the matter to arbitration

Citing Krish Spinning, the Court reasoned that any contested factual or legal issues—including whether claims are "ex facie meritless" or "frivolous"—must be left for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide under Section 16 of the Act

The Court emphasized that delving into the merits at this nascent stage would violate the legislative intent of minimum judicial interference and time-bound disposal of Section 11 applications

It appointed Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dudeja, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes

The Court directed the Arbitrator to file the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Act

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

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