Synopsis

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising out of a Loan Agreement dated 4th April 2024. The arbitration clause (Clause 8.2) provided for arbitration of all disputes. The petitioner issued a notice of invocation under Section 21 on 4th September 2025. The respondents were duly served but did not appear or file any reply. The Delhi High Court, applying the law laid down by the three‑judge Bench in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning and the seven‑judge Bench in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration Act, 1996 & the Stamp Act, 1899, In re, held that the scope of examination under Section 11 is limited to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. The court appointed a sole arbitrator (Ms. Sandhya Gupta, Advocate) to adjudicate the disputes, leaving all contentions on merits to be decided by the arbitrator.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar

Date of Judgment: 16th April 2026

Citation: ARB.P. 2112/2025

Core Law: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 11(6), 11(6‑A), 21; Appointment of arbitrator

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 11(6) (appointment of arbitrator by Chief Justice or his designate), 11(6‑A) (scope of examination – existence of arbitration agreement), 21 (commencement of arbitral proceedings)

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – provisions relating to service of notice

Key legal principles applied

• Scope of Section 11(6‑A) – limited to prima facie existence of arbitration agreement: Under Section 11(6‑A), the referral court’s examination is confined to the existence of an arbitration agreement on the basis of Section 7 of the Act. The court does not adjudicate contested factual or legal issues, which are left for the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16.

• Prima facie scrutiny, not laborious enquiry: The court applies a prima facie scrutiny to weed out non‑existent arbitration agreements. It does not undertake a detailed or contested enquiry. The prima facie view does not bind the Arbitral Tribunal.

• No examination of “accord and satisfa

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