Section 11 scrutiny is confined to prima facie existence of arbitration agreement without examining contested facts.

The Petitioner sought the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, pursuant to Clause 8 of a Memorandum of Understanding cum Agreement dated 02.02.2022

The Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause via notice on 08.05.2024

Simultaneously, the Petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act seeking interim injunctive relief to restrain the Respondents from alienating or creating third-party interests in specific land in Sampla, Haryana, and to prevent changes in the Board of Directors/shareholding of Respondent No. 1

The Respondents expressed no objection to the appointment of an arbitrator

Whether the Court should appoint a Sole Arbitrator given the existence of an arbitration agreement and the limited scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11

Whether the Section 9 petition for interim relief should be adjudicated by the Court or referred to the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17

The Court applied Section 11(6) regarding the appointment of arbitrators

and Section 7 regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement

It strictly followed the precedent set by the Supreme Court in *SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning*, which integrated the seven-judge Bench ruling in *In re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899*

These authorities establish that judicial intervention at the Section 11 stage is confined to a *prima facie* examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement, leaving questions of "accord and satisfaction," arbitrability, or "ex facie frivolity" to the Arbitral Tribunal under the principle of competence-competence

The Court determined that since a written arbitration agreement existed (Clause 8) and a Section 21 notice had been served, its role was merely "facilitative and procedural"

Following the *Krish Spinning* mandate, the Court refused to embark on an adjudication of contentious factual or legal issues, noting that the Referral Court must only "weed out non-existent arbitration agreements"

Regarding the Section 9 petition, the Court observed that since the Arbitral Tribunal was being constituted, the application for interim measures should be handled by the Arbitrator to uphold the legislative intent of minimum judicial interference

The Court maintained the status quo via the previous interim order dated 27.05.2024 solely to preserve the subject matter until the Arbitrator could hear the Section 17 application

It held that all rights and contentions, including jurisdictional objections, remain open for the Arbitrator’s decision

The Section 9 petition was disposed of with directions that it be treated as an application under Section 17 before the learned Arbitrator

The interim order dated 27.05.2024 was ordered to continue only until the Arbitrator adjudicates the Section 17 application