Section 11 scrutiny is confined to prima facie existence of arbitration agreement, excluding merits and arbitrability.

The Petitioner filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a Service Provider Agreement dated 01.10.2024.

The Agreement contains an arbitration clause (Clause 19.8) providing for dispute resolution via a single arbitrator.

The Petitioner invoked arbitration via a Section 21 notice dated 23.10.2025.

The Respondent opposed the petition, contending that the agreement was terminable by nature, was not wrongfully terminated, and that certain claims raised by the Petitioner fell outside the scope of the Agreement.

Whether the Court, under Section 11, can adjudicate upon the merits of a dispute, such as the wrongful termination of a contract or the scope of specific claims.

Whether a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed despite the Respondent’s objections regarding the nature of the claims and termination.

The Court primarily applied Section 11(6-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which limits judicial intervention to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement.

It relied heavily on the three-judge bench decision in *SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning* (2024), which incorporated the seven-judge bench ruling in *Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re*.

These precedents establish that the Referral Court must only conduct a *prima facie* scrutiny of the agreement’s existence and must not delve into contested facts, "accord and satisfaction," or the "eye of the needle" test, leaving such "rule" based determinations to the Arbitral Tribunal under the principle of competence-competence.

The Court observed that the Respondent's objections—concerning whether the termination was wrongful and whether the claims were covered by the agreement—are matters touching upon the merits of the case.

Following the mandate in *Krish Spinning*, the Court held that its role at the Section 11 stage is purely facilitative and procedural.

A detailed inquiry into the "terminable" nature of the contract or the validity of claims would exceed the "bare minimum pleadings" standard and infringe upon the Arbitral Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Since the existence of the arbitration agreement (Clause 19.8) was not in doubt, the Court found it appropriate to refer the parties to arbitration without expressing an opinion on the underlying controversy.

The Court appointed Mr. Amit Saxena, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).

The parties were directed to share costs equally, and the arbitrator was required to provide disclosures under Section 12(2) of the Act.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.