Section 11 jurisdiction is restricted to prima facie examination of arbitration agreement existence, excluding adjudication of merits.

The Petitioner sought the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act") following disputes arising from a Fulfilment Service Agreement dated 29.01.2021

Clause 16 of the Agreement provided for arbitration in New Delhi, while Clause 17 vested jurisdiction in Delhi courts

The Petitioner fulfilled the statutory mandate of notice under Section 21 on 05.11.2025

Despite being duly served and granted multiple opportunities, the Respondent failed to enter an appearance or file a reply

The valuation of the dispute is approximately Rs. 1,41,000/-

1. Whether the Court should exercise its power under Section 11(6) of the Act to appoint an arbitrator when the respondent fails to participate in the appointment process despite the existence of a valid arbitration agreement

2. What is the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny by a Referral Court under Section 11 of the Act following recent Supreme Court precedents

The Court applied Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, concerning the court's power to appoint arbitrators upon the failure of the agreed procedure

It relied extensively on the Supreme Court’s ruling in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024), which interpreted the impact of the seven-judge bench decision in In re, Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899

These precedents establish that judicial interference under Section 11 is confined strictly to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement and does not extend to contested issues like "accord and satisfaction" or "ex-facie frivolity," which are reserved for the Arbitral Tribunal under the principle of competence-competence

The Court observed that the arbitration clause was clearly established in the Agreement and the seat was designated as New Delhi

Since the Section 21 notice was served and the Respondent remained absent, the Court found no legal impediment to the appointment

Following the "eye of the needle" test as refined in Krish Spinning, the Court reasoned that its role is facilitative and procedural, intended to resolve deadlocks in appointment without embarking on a laborious inquiry into the merits or validity of the claims

It noted that even issues of "ex-facie frivolity" are better decided by the Tribunal through evidence rather than by the Referral Court at a nascent stage

Consequently, since a prima facie agreement existed, the Court was bound to refer the matter to arbitration

The Arbitrator was directed to provide mandatory disclosures under Section 12(2)

The Court ordered that fees be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Act, to be shared equally by the parties

All rights and contentions on the merits of the claims were left open for the Arbitrator’s determination

The petition was disposed of accordingly