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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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