Section 11 Scope is Confined to Prima Facie Examination of Arbitration Agreement's Existence

The Petitioner, Sonika Garg, entered into loan agreements with Muthoot Finance Ltd. governed by Sanction Letters dated 30.11.2021 and 03.06.2022

Following a dispute regarding the rendition of accounts and recovery, the Petitioner filed a civil suit

The Respondents moved an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was allowed by the Civil Judge, Bathinda, on 28.08.2025, referring the matter to arbitration

However, the Respondents subsequently failed to appoint an arbitrator or invoke proceedings

The Petitioner issued a request for appointment on 05.12.2025, which remained unfulfilled, leading to the filing of the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Act

1. Whether the Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6), should limit its scrutiny to the prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement

2. Whether a sole arbitrator should be appointed given the Respondents’ "no objection" and the prior Section 8 reference

The Court primarily applied Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding the judicial appointment of arbitrators

The Court relied heavily on the precedent established by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024), which incorporated the findings of the seven-judge bench in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 Stamp Act, 1899, In re

These cases established that judicial intervention under Section 11 is confined strictly to the examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement, leaving questions of "accord and satisfaction," arbitrability, or merit to the Arbitral Tribunal under the principle of competence-competence

The Court noted that the Respondents did not contest the existence of the arbitration agreement and, in fact, expressed "no objection" to the referral

Applying the Krish Spinning standard, the Court held that its role is facilitative and procedural rather than adjudicatory

Since the existence of the agreement was undisputed—and previously affirmed by a civil court’s Section 8 order—the Court found no reason to delve into the merits or factual contentions of the underlying loan dispute

The Court emphasized that a Section 11 inquiry must not be "laborious" and should prioritize arbitral autonomy by weeding out only non-existent agreements while leaving all other issues to the Tribunal

The Petition was allowed, and Mr. Aehsas Puri, Advocate, was appointed as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes

The Arbitrator’s fee was set in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Act

The Court directed the Arbitrator to file a disclosure under Section 12(2) and clarified that all rights and contentions on merits remain open for the Tribunal's determination