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

The dispute arose from a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21 November 2023 concerning the sale of Plot No. C-31, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi–110020.

The Petitioner alleged breach of the obligations under the MOU and invoked the arbitration agreement contained in Clauses 28 and 29 by notice dated 18 April 2026.

Although the proceedings were instituted under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, all parties consented to reference of the disputes to arbitration and agreed to the appointment of a sole arbitrator; accordingly, the Court treated the petition as one under Section 11(6) of the Act.

The Respondents did not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement, and Respondent No. 3’s reply contained no specific denial of the arbitration clause.

Whether the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could, with the parties’ consent, be treated as a petition under Section 11(6) for appointment of an arbitrator.

Whether a valid arbitration agreement prima facie existed between the parties so as to warrant appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act.

Whether the disputes arising from the MOU should be referred to arbitration and administered under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre.

The Court applied Sections 9, 11(6), 12(2), and 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Section 11 jurisdiction is limited to examining the prima facie existence of a valid arbitration agreement.

Where parties are ad idem regarding the existence of the arbitration agreement and reference of disputes to arbitration, the Court may appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6).

The appointed arbitrator must furnish the requisite disclosures under Section 12(2), and interim-relief applications under Section 17 may be considered by the arbitral tribunal.

The parties expressly consented to arbitration and raised no dispute regarding the arbitration agreement contained in Clauses 28 and 29 of the MOU.

Since the Section 11 enquiry is confined to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, and Respondent No. 3 had not specifically denied that agreement, the Court found no impediment to constituting the arbitral tribunal.

The Court therefore appointed a sole arbitrator and directed that the proceedings be conducted under the rules and aegis of DIAC. It preserved the parties’ right to raise objections concerning arbitrability and jurisdiction before the arbitrator, without expressing any final view on those issues.

The arbitrator was directed to enter upon the reference within two weeks and furnish the disclosures required under Section 12(2).

The arbitration was directed to be conducted under the rules and aegis of DIAC, with fees as per the DIAC schedule.

The parties remained free to raise all objections, including objections to arbitrability and jurisdiction, before the arbitrator.

The Petitioner was also permitted to file an application under Section 17 before the arbitrator, preferably to be decided within two weeks.