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

In brief

The question

1. Whether a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11 of the Act to adjudicate the disputes arising from the License Agreement

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and appointed Mr. Nawab Singh Jaglan, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties

It also directed

It directed the Arbitrator to provide the requisite disclosures under Section 12(2) and ordered the parties to share the arbitral costs and fees equally

The Court held that all rights and contentions regarding claims and counter-claims remain open for adjudication by the Arbitral Tribunal

The petition was disposed of accordingly

01Facts

The Petitioner, Maya Devi, filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator

p. 1

The dispute between the parties arose from a License Agreement dated 06.04.2010 and a Supplementary Agreement dated 28.10.2010

p. 1

Clause 21 of the License Agreement contains an arbitration clause specifying Delhi as the seat of arbitration

pp. 1-2

The Petitioner invoked arbitration via a notice under Section 21 of the Act dated 15.10.2024

p. 2

During the proceedings, the Respondent stated they had no objection to the appointment of an arbitrator

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11 of the Act to adjudicate the disputes arising from the License Agreement

p. 6

ii.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

pp. 2-5

03Law Applied

The Court applied Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers the High Court to appoint an arbitrator when the parties' agreed procedure fails

p. 1

judicial scrutiny under Section 11 is confined strictly to the examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement

¶ 112.3 · p. 3

principle of "minimal judicial intervention" and the "competence-competence" doctrine

¶ 117-119 · p. 4

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 7 Section 8 Section 11 Section 12 Section 16 Section 21 Section 37

04Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the role of a Referral Court under Section 11 is facilitative and procedural rather than adjudicatory

p. 6

Section 11(6-A) limits the court's inquiry to a prima facie scrutiny of the existence of an agreement, leaving contested issues of fact, law, or "accord and satisfaction" to the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16

¶ 114, 119 · pp. 3-4

The Court observed that delving into the merits or "frivolity" of claims at this stage would undermine arbitral autonomy and the legislative intent of expeditious disposal

¶ 121, 127 · pp. 4-5

Since the existence of the arbitration clause was undisputed and the Respondent consented to the appointment, the Court found the statutory requirements for referral satisfied

p. 6

It further clarified that the appointment does not constitute an opinion on the merits of the underlying controversy

p. 6

05Holding

The Court allowed the petition and appointed Mr. Nawab Singh Jaglan, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties

p. 6

It directed the Arbitrator to provide the requisite disclosures under Section 12(2) and ordered the parties to share the arbitral costs and fees equally

p. 6

The Court held that all rights and contentions regarding claims and counter-claims remain open for adjudication by the Arbitral Tribunal

pp. 6-7

The petition was disposed of accordingly

p. 7

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF