Facts
The Petitioner, Mayank Mann, filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from Agreements to Sell dated 05.08.2024 and 04.09.2024
Source reference: p. 1-2The agreements contained an arbitration clause (Clause 15) granting the buyer (Petitioner) discretion to appoint an arbitrator
Source reference: p. 2A Section 21 notice was issued on 11.12.2025
Source reference: p. 2The Respondents challenged the maintainability of the petition on the grounds that the underlying agreements were unregistered and thus the arbitration clause was unenforceable
Source reference: p. 2Additionally, a Section 9 petition for interim relief was filed by the Petitioner regarding the property at Plot No. 2-A, Block E, Mansarover Garden, Delhi
Source reference: p. 7-8Issues
1. Whether the non-registration of the underlying Agreements to Sell renders the arbitration clause contained therein unenforceable at the Section 11 stage
Source reference: p. 2, para. 4-52. Whether the Court should appoint an arbitrator given the limited scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) of the Act
Source reference: p. 3, para. 73. Whether the Section 9 petition for interim measures should be adjudicated by the Court or referred to the Arbitral Tribunal
Source reference: p. 8, para. 17Law Applied
The Court applied Section 11(6) and Section 11(6-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which limits judicial intervention to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement
Source reference: p. 1, 4It relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s ruling in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, which clarified that the Referral Court must only "weed out non-existent arbitration agreements" and leave contested legal/factual issues to the Tribunal
Source reference: p. 3-4, para. 115The Court also integrated the doctrine from Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re, affirming that issues of formal validity (like registration or stamping) should not impede a Section 11 reference
Source reference: p. 3-4Reasoning
The Court dismissed the Respondents' objection regarding the lack of registration, holding that such an objection does not prima facie affect the enforceability of an arbitration clause at the referral stage; instead, this remains a challenge the Respondent may raise before the Arbitral Tribunal
Source reference: p. 2, para. 5Following the "modern arbitration" principles outlined in Krish Spinning, the Court emphasized that judicial scrutiny under Section 11 is narrow and facilitative, focused solely on the existence of the agreement in writing
Source reference: p. 4, para. 113; p. 6, para. 121The Court found that since an arbitration agreement (Clause 15) existed and a Section 21 notice was served, there was no impediment to the reference
Source reference: p. 2-3Regarding the Section 9 petition, the Court determined that since the dispute was being referred to arbitration, the application for interim relief should be treated as a Section 17 application to be decided by the appointed Arbitrator to uphold arbitral autonomy
Source reference: p. 8, para. 17Holding
The Court allowed the petition under Section 11(6), answering that the arbitration agreement exists and the objection of non-registration is a matter for the Tribunal
Mr. Achal Gupta, Advocate, was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. The Section 9 petition was disposed of with directions that it be treated as an application under Section 17 to be adjudicated by the Sole Arbitrator. All rights and contentions on merits were left open for the Tribunal
Source reference: p. 7, para. 10; p. 8, para. 17-20; p. 7, para. 13Original Court PDF
Sh.Mayank MannvsMohan Lal Gupta & Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in