Synopsis

The petitioner filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitral tribunal to resolve disputes arising from a contract dated 06.09.2024. The contract contained an arbitration clause providing for a three‑member tribunal (two arbitrators and an umpire). Despite service, the respondents (a company and its director) did not appear; one respondent refused service. The High 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. Finding that a valid arbitration clause existed, the court appointed two arbitrators (one on behalf of each party) and directed them to nominate a presiding arbitrator. The petition was allowed.

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 – Section 11(6) (appointment of arbitrators)

2. Legal Framework

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 11(6) – power of the Chief Justice or his designate to appoint an arbitrator when the parties fail to agree on a procedure or the agreed procedure fails; Section 11(6‑A) – the court shall confine its examination to the existence of an arbitration agreement.

• Relevant Precedents:
  SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2025?) – followed; the Supreme Court held that under Section 11(6‑A), the referral court’s role is limited to

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