### Section 11 Scrutiny is Confined to Prima Facie Existence of Arbitration Agreement Excluding Merits or Factual Disputes

The Petitioner, Oriental Foundry Private Limited, entered into Contract No. 2022/RS(I)/954/212/1945 dated 17.05.2025 with the Union of India

Disputes emerged regarding the contract, leading the Petitioner to issue a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on 24.12.2025

The Petitioner filed a petition under Section 11(6) for the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator and a separate petition under Section 9 seeking interim protection against the encashment of a Bank Guarantee dated 07.02.2025

The Respondent expressed no objection to the reference of the dispute to arbitration

1. Whether a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to resolve disputes arising from the contract

2. Whether the interim protection sought regarding the Bank Guarantee should be maintained during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings

The court primarily applied Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding the court's power to appoint an arbitrator when the agreed procedure fails

It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in *SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning*, which clarified that judicial scrutiny under Section 11 is confined solely to a *prima facie* examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement

The court also referenced the "Competence-Competence" principle, noting that issues such as "accord and satisfaction" or contested facts fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16

The Court noted that the contract contained an arbitration clause (Clause 18) incorporating the Railway Board’s arbitration policy

Following the mandate in *Krish Spinning*, the Court limited its enquiry to the existence of the arbitration agreement and found that both parties reached a consensus to refer the matter to arbitration

Regarding the Section 9 petition for interim relief, the Court observed that since an Arbitrator was being appointed, the petition should be converted into a Section 17 application to be decided by the Tribunal, thereby upholding the principle of minimal judicial interference

The Court determined that a retired judge should be appointed given the claim valuation exceeded Rs. 9 Crores

The Section 9 petition was disposed of with directions that it be treated as an application under Section 17 before the learned Arbitrator, and the interim order dated 11.12.2025 was extended until the Arbitrator adjudicates the stay application

The parties were directed to share the costs and fees as per the Fourth Schedule of the Act