Section 11 jurisdiction is restricted 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 (“the Act”), seeking the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal based on a Contract dated 06.09.2024

Clause 10 of the Contract stipulated that disputes would be referred to two arbitrators (one appointed by each party), who would then appoint an umpire

The Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause via legal notice on 16.09.2025

Despite being duly served, the Respondents—a private limited company and its director—failed to appear. Respondent No. 1 specifically refused to accept the notice sent via speed post

The valuation of the dispute is approximately Rs. 50,00,000/-

1. Whether the Court should exercise its power under Section 11(6) of the Act to appoint an Arbitral Tribunal when the Respondents fail to participate in the appointment process.

2. What is the permissible scope of judicial scrutiny by a Referral Court at the stage of Section 11(6) of the Act.

The Court primarily applied Section 11(6) and 11(6-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which governs the appointment of arbitrators by the Court

The Court relied extensively on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024) 12 SCC 1, which incorporated the findings of the seven-judge Bench in In re, Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 Stamp Act, 1899 (2024) 6 SCC 1

These precedents established that the standard of scrutiny under Section 11 is strictly confined to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement, leaving all other contested issues—including "accord and satisfaction" or the merits of the dispute—to be "ruled" upon by the Arbitral Tribunal under the principle of competence-competence

The Court observed that the arbitration agreement (Clause 10) was clearly established and that the Petitioner had validly invoked it under Section 21

Applying the principles from Krish Spinning, the Court noted that its role is purely facilitative and procedural, intended to resolve deadlocks in the appointment process

Since the Respondents refused service and failed to appear, the Court found no impediment to proceeding

The Court accepted the Petitioner's waiver of the specific procedural requirement to nominate their own arbitrator and decided to appoint arbitrators for both sides to ensure an expeditious resolution

The Court emphasized that by appointing the tribunal, it was merely giving effect to the parties' original intent to arbitrate without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claims

It appointed Mr. Sandeep Pandey, Advocate, as the arbitrator for the Petitioner and Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate, as the arbitrator for the Respondents

These two arbitrators were directed to nominate a presiding arbitrator/umpire within two weeks

The Court held that the tribunal’s fee shall be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Act and shared equally by the parties

All rights and contentions on the merits of the dispute were left open for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide