Section 11 Scrutiny is Confined to Prima Facie Existence of Arbitration Agreement Without Adjudicating Merits or Arbitrability

The Petitioner, M/S India Glycols Limited, filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.

The dispute arose from Agreements for Tie-Up Manufacture of IMFL Products dated 31.03.2015 and 31.03.2017, which contained an arbitration clause (Clause 32) providing for resolution of disputes in New Delhi.

The Petitioner invoked arbitration via a legal notice dated 21.11.2025.

The Respondent appeared and expressed no objection to the referral of disputes to arbitration.

1. Whether the Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act to appoint an arbitrator when the parties are ad idem regarding the existence of a dispute and the arbitration agreement.

Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding the judicial appointment of arbitrators.

The scope of scrutiny under Section 11 is confined strictly to the examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement as established in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning.

The principle that referral courts must only conduct a prima facie scrutiny and leave contested issues, such as "accord and satisfaction," to the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 as per Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re.

The Court observed that its role under Section 11 is facilitative and procedural, intended to give effect to the parties' mutual intention to arbitrate when the agreed appointment procedure fails.

Following the Krish Spinning precedent, the Court noted that it must not embark on a "laborious enquiry" into the merits or factual disputes, such as whether a claim is "ex-facie meritless," as these are matters within the exclusive domain of the Arbitral Tribunal.

Given that both parties agreed to the arbitration referral and a valid arbitration agreement existed in Clause 32 of their contract, the Court found its duty limited to ensuring the constitution of the tribunal.

The arbitration is to be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) in accordance with its rules and fee schedule; all rights and contentions on merits remain open for the Arbitrator's decision.