Section 11 review is confined to prima facie examination of an arbitration agreement’s existence.

Sarvasva Capital Finance Private Limited filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a Loan Agreement dated 17 March 2021.

The arbitration clause was contained in Clause 20 of the General Terms and Conditions, which formed part of the Agreement and provided for arbitration by a sole arbitrator, with New Delhi as the place of arbitration.

The parties did not dispute the existence of a valid arbitration clause.

Whether the Court should appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from the Loan Agreement where the existence of a valid arbitration clause was undisputed.

Whether the parties’ other objections, including those concerning arbitrability, jurisdiction and limitation, should be determined at the Section 11 stage or left to the arbitrator.

Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, empowers the Court to appoint an arbitrator where the statutory requirements for appointment are met.

At this stage, the Court’s enquiry is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.

Questions including arbitrability, jurisdiction and limitation may be raised before the arbitrator for determination in accordance with law.

The Court identified Clause 20 as the arbitration agreement and noted that its existence and validity were not disputed.

As the Court’s Section 11 enquiry was limited to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, it found no impediment to appointing a sole arbitrator.

It left questions of arbitrability, jurisdiction and limitation, as well as the merits of the claims and counterclaims, for independent determination by the arbitrator.

The arbitration was directed to proceed under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with the arbitrator’s fees payable as per its Schedule of Fees.

The parties may raise their pleas before the arbitrator, who must decide them in accordance with law and independently of the Court’s observations.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.