Synopsis

The petitioner filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator for disputes arising from a Business Development Agreement dated 1st March 2025. The arbitration clause provided for arbitration seated in Delhi under the Act. The respondent did not oppose the reference. The Delhi High Court, relying on the recent three‑Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning and the seven‑Judge Bench decision in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re, reiterated that the scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) is confined to a prima facie examination of the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. The court appointed Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Hemant Gupta, former Supreme Court Judge, as the sole arbitrator under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open for the arbitral tribunal.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar

Date of Judgment: 13th April 2026

Citation: ARB.P. 393/2026

Core Law: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Sections 11(6), 11(6-A), 7, 16, 21)

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) (appointment of arbitrator by Chief Justice or his designate), Section 11(6-A) (scope of examination limited to 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)

Key legal principles applied

• Scope of judicial intervention under Section 11(6) is narrow: The referral court’s role is facilitative and procedural – to give effect to the parties’ agreed dispute resolution mechanism when it has failed. The court must confine itself to a prima facie examination of the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.

• No examination of contested facts or “accord and satisfaction”: Issues such as “accord and satisfaction,” frivolity of claims, or merits of the dispute are mixed questions of law and fact that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal under Section 16. The referral court cannot delve into them.

• Prima facie scrutiny of existence of arbitration agreement: The use of the term “examination” in Section 11(6-A) (as opposed to “rule” in Section 16) implies a limited, prima facie scrutiny of formal validity (e.g., that the agreement is in writing). A contested or laborious enquiry is left for the arbitral tribunal.

• Prima facie view does not bind the arbitral tribunal or the enforcing court: The view taken by the referral court on the existence of the arbitration agreement is not final and does not preclude the arbitral tribunal from ruling on the issue in depth under Section 16.

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