Synopsis

The petitioner filed a petition under section 11(6) of the arbitration act seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator based on a memorandum of understanding containing an arbitration clause. the respondent had no objection to the reference but reserved the right to raise objections on factual assertions. the delhi high court, following the three‑judge bench decision in sbi general insurance co. ltd. v. krish spg. and the seven‑judge bench decision in interplay between arbitration agreements, held that the referral court’s role under section 11 is confined to a prima facie examination of the existence of a written arbitration agreement. since the arbitration clause existed and the parties were ad idem, the court appointed a sole arbitrator. all rights and contentions were kept open for the arbitrator to decide.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar (Single Judge)

Date of Decision: 14th May 2026

Citation: ARB.P. 259/2026 (unreported)

Core Law: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) (appointment of arbitrator); Section 11(6-A) (scope limited to existence of arbitration agreement).

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

Arb.p. 259/2026 & i.a. 3530/2026

M/s venkateshwara edusupport limited (petitioner) vs. People infotech private limited & ors. (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice harish vaidyanathan shankar

Date: 14th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involve

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