Section 11 review is confined to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.

The petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in disputes with the respondents arising under four composite agreements dated 20 August 2025.

The agreements contained arbitration clauses providing for a sole arbitrator and New Delhi as the place or seat of arbitration; the clauses also provided for appointment in accordance with the Act if the parties could not agree on an arbitrator.

The respondents’ counsel stated that there was no dispute concerning the existence of an arbitration agreement.

1. Whether the Court should appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act to adjudicate the parties’ disputes.

2. Whether the Court’s enquiry at the Section 11 stage should be confined to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.

Under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court’s enquiry at the appointment stage is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.

Section 12(2) of the Act requires the appointed arbitrator to furnish the requisite disclosure.

The Court noted that the respondents did not dispute the arbitration agreement and that the agreements contained clauses providing for arbitration by a sole arbitrator, with appointment under the Act if the parties failed to agree.

Applying the limited Section 11 enquiry, the Court found no impediment to appointing a sole arbitrator.

It left objections—including arbitrability, limitation and jurisdiction—to be raised before and decided by the arbitrator, and clarified that its observations would not affect the merits of the disputes.

The arbitration is to be conducted under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with fees as per its Schedule of Fees.

The petition was disposed of, with pending applications also disposed of.