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

Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. filed a petition under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator.

The respondents were served but did not appear or file a reply despite being given an opportunity.

The loan agreement contained an arbitration clause providing for disputes to be referred to a sole arbitrator.

Whether the loan agreement disclosed a prima facie arbitration agreement sufficient for the Court to consider a referral under Section 11 of the Act

Whether a sole arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties

Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 govern the Court’s appointment of an arbitrator.

At the Section 11 stage, the Court’s inquiry is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, applying SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754.

Section 12(2) requires the appointed arbitrator to furnish the requisite disclosure.

The loan agreement’s dispute-resolution clause covered disputes arising in connection with the facility and provided for arbitration under the Act.

The Court therefore found no impediment to appointment, applying the limited prima facie inquiry applicable under Section 11.

The respondents’ non-participation did not prevent the Court from proceeding, as service had been established.

The Court left objections, including as to arbitrability and jurisdiction, for the arbitrator to decide.

The arbitration is to be conducted under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with fees as per its schedule.

The arbitrator may decide all pleas, including objections to arbitrability and jurisdiction, independently and on their merits.

The petition and pending application were disposed of accordingly.