Synopsis

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a Services Management Solutions Agreement. The respondent, while disputing the claims on merits, did not object to the existence of the arbitration clause or to the appointment of an arbitrator. The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in SBI General Insurance v. Krish Spinning, reiterated that the scope of examination under Section 11(6A) is limited to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. The court appointed a sole arbitrator, leaving all contentions on merits to be decided by the arbitral tribunal. The petition was disposed of.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar (Single Judge)

Date of Decision: 4th May 2026

Citation: ARB.P. 656/2026 (2026:DHC:3786)

Core Law: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 11(6), 11(6A), 21.

1.  Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

Arb.p. 656 of 2026

Tracx logis india private limited (petitioner) vs. Fixfeels technologies private limited (respondent)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice harish vaidyanathan shankar

Date: 4th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Arbitratio

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.