Synopsis

The petitioner filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator in terms of the Service Agreement and Addendum executed between the parties. The arbitration clause in the original agreement gave unilateral appointment power to the petitioner (second party), while the addendum changed it to mutual appointment. The respondent was not opposed to arbitration but suggested mediation as an alternative. The Delhi High Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s recent three-judge bench decision in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, held that the referral court’s jurisdiction under Section 11 is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement and nothing more. The court found a valid arbitration agreement, complied with Section 21 notice, and accordingly appointed a sole arbitrator. However, the court also directed the parties to explore mediation through the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre (Samadhan) before the arbitrator entered reference, giving them an opportunity to settle amicably.

Court: High Court of Delhi

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

Date of Judgment: 6th May, 2026

Citation: Arbitration Petition (under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act) – unreported

Core Law: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 11(6), 11(6-A), 7, 16, 21; Scope of referral court’s jurisdiction after 2015 amendment; SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2025) – three-judge bench

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi

Arbitration petition (under section 11(6) of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996)

360 degrees management services private limited (petitioner) vs. Suman s srinivasan & ors. (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice harish vaidyanathan shankar

Date of judgment: 6th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

Arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 – section 11(6) (power of high court to appoint arbitrator when parties fail to agree on procedure), section 11(6-a) (referral court to confine to examination of existence of arbitration agreement), section 7 (definition of arbitration agreement), section 16 (competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction), section 21 (commencement of arbitral proceedings)

Subject matter of the judgment:

The scope and standard of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act after the 2015 Amendment and the recent three-judge bench decision in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning. Whether the

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