Synopsis

The petitioner, claiming to be the successor-in-interest of one of the original joint venture partners (C&C Constructions Ltd.) under a Sale Certificate that transferred “interest in the joint ventures,” sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. The respondents objected on three grounds: (i) no privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondents; (ii) the Sale Certificate did not vest contractual rights under the underlying agreement; (iii) the co‑respondent (the other JV partner) had raised serious objections, making the arbitration clause unworkable. The High Court, relying on APGENCO v. Tecpro Systems Ltd. (2026) 3 SCC 491 and Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India (P) Ltd. (2024) 4 SCC 1, held that the referral court’s role under Section 11 is confined to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement. Issues of succession, assignment, and whether the petitioner is a veritable party to the arbitration agreement must be left to the arbitral tribunal under Section 16. The court appointed a three-member tribunal, with one arbitrator nominated by the respondent and one appointed by the court on behalf of the petitioner.

Court: High Court of Delhi

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar

Date of Judgment: 20th April 2026

Citation: ARB.P. 1589/2025 (2026:DHC:3269)

Core Law: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11 (appointment of arbitrator), Section 11(6-A) (examination limited to existence of arbitration agreement), Section 16 (competence-competence); joinder of non‑signatories; successor in interest

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11 (appointment of arbitrator), Section 11(6-A) (examination limited to existence of arbitration agreement), Section 16 (arbitral tribunal’s power to rule on its own jurisdiction)

Key legal principles applied

Limited scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6-A): The referral court’s enquiry is confined to a prima facie determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement. It cannot undertake a mini‑trial or adjudicate on contested factual or legal issues relating to authority, capacity, arbitrability, or maintainability.

Non‑signatory parties – prima facie examination: Where a non‑signatory seeks invocation of an arbitration agreement, the referral court must only examine whether there is a prima facie basis to assert that the non‑signatory is a veritable party to the ar

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