Under Section 11(6), Referral Courts must confine judicial scrutiny to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.

The Petitioner, Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited, filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator

The request was based on a Car Finance Agreement dated 30.10.2022, which contained an arbitration clause (Clause 32) for resolving disputes arising from the agreement

The Petitioner issued a notice under Section 21 of the Act on 01.10.2025

Despite being duly served and provided an additional opportunity to file objections via a court order dated 24.03.2026, the Respondents failed to appear or participate in the proceedings

1. Whether a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, given the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and the Respondents' failure to participate

2. What is the permissible scope of judicial scrutiny by a referral court at the stage of Section 11 of the Act

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

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

judicial intervention under Section 11 is confined strictly to a prima facie examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement

the "negative effect of competence-competence" precludes referral courts from deciding issues like "accord and satisfaction" or "ex-facie meritless" claims, leaving such determinations to the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16

The Court observed that the statutory requirements for the appointment of an arbitrator were satisfied as the Car Finance Agreement contained an express arbitration clause

Following the principles laid down in Krish Spinning, the Court limited its enquiry to the prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement, noting that it must not embark on a "laborious enquiry" into the merits of the dispute

Since the Respondents chose not to contest the petition despite service, and there was no impediment to the reference, the Court determined that its role was facilitative—to give effect to the parties' original intent to arbitrate

The Court emphasized that referring the matter does not dilute any defenses, such as "accord and satisfaction," which remains open for the Arbitrator to decide

The arbitration is to be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) in accordance with its rules and fee schedule. The Arbitrator was directed to file a disclosure under Section 12(2) within one week. The Court held that all rights and contentions on merits remain open for the Arbitrator’s determination