Under Section 11, courts need only prima facie examine the existence of an arbitration agreement.

The Petitioner, an allottee and owner of a commercial unit, had purchased the unit from the Respondent under a Conveyance Deed/Builder-Buyer Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding dated 17 June 2022.

The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent paid the agreed rental returns until June 2024, after which only partial payments were made and subsequent rental payments ceased despite repeated requests.

He claimed outstanding rental dues of ₹19,74,746.

The MOU contained an arbitration agreement in Clause 12.

The Petitioner invoked arbitration by notice dated 11 March 2026 under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and filed the present petition under Section 11(6) seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator.

The Respondent raised no objection to the appointment.

1. Whether a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties so as to attract the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. Whether, in view of the parties’ agreement to refer their disputes to arbitration and the Respondent’s absence of objection, a sole arbitrator ought to be appointed.

The Court applied Sections 11(6), 12(2), and 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Section 11(6) empowers the Court to appoint an arbitrator where the agreed appointment procedure has failed or requires judicial intervention; at this stage, the Court’s enquiry is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.

Section 21 governs commencement of arbitral proceedings through a request for reference to arbitration.

Section 12(2) requires the arbitrator to furnish the prescribed disclosures concerning independence and impartiality.

The Court relied on SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754, for the limited scope of examination under Section 11.

The Court found that Clause 12 of the MOU dated 17 June 2022 contained an arbitration agreement and that the Petitioner had validly invoked arbitration by issuing notice under Section 21.

Since the Respondent expressly stated that it had no objection to the appointment of a sole arbitrator, the parties were ad idem regarding reference of their disputes to arbitration.

Applying the prima facie standard under Section 11, the Court held that no impediment existed to appointing a sole arbitrator; it did not adjudicate the merits of the Petitioner’s claim for rental dues or any objections concerning arbitrability or jurisdiction.

She was directed to enter upon the reference within two weeks and furnish the disclosures required under Section 12(2) within two weeks of entering reference.

The arbitration was directed to be conducted under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with fees payable according to the DIAC Schedule of Fees.

The parties were left free to raise all pleas, including objections to arbitrability and jurisdiction, before the arbitrator.

The petition was accordingly disposed of.