Synopsis

The petitioner (Winsome Breweries Ltd.) filed an application under Section 11(5) & (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from three Inter-Corporate Deposit Agreements (ICDs) dated 25.10.2016, 22.02.2017 and 10.08.2017. The respondent opposed the petition on two grounds: (i) that the disputes stood fully settled as evidenced by an earlier order of the High Court dated 06.02.2025, wherein the respondent agreed to pay an additional sum of Rs. 6 lakhs; and (ii) that the petition was barred by limitation. The court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, held that the scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11 is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement. All other contentions (accord and satisfaction, limitation, etc.) are matters for the arbitral tribunal to decide under Section 16. Accordingly, the court appointed a sole arbitrator.

Court: High Court of Delhi
Coram: Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, J.
Date: April 9, 2026
Citation: Not explicitly provided (likely 2026:DHC:xxxx)
Core Law: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 11(5) & (6) (appointment of arbitrator)

2. Legal Framework

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 11(5) & (6) – appointment of arbitrator by the Court when the parties fail to agree on the appointment procedure; Section 11(6‑A) – the Court shall confine its examination to the existence of an arbitration agreement; Section 16 – competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction.

• Limitation Act, 1908 (now 1963): Section 19 – acknowledgement of liability as a fresh starting point of limitation (referred by the petitioner but not adjudicated).

• Relevant Precedents:
  SBI General Insurance Co. Lt

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