Synopsis

The petitioner filed two applications under section 11(6) of the arbitration act seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator based on identical carrying and forwarding agreements containing arbitration clauses. The arbitration clause provided that the arbitrator would be appointed by the company (respondent). Since disputes arose, the petitioner invoked arbitration. The respondent raised no objection to reference. The delhi high court, relying on 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 an arbitration agreement. The court appointed a sole arbitrator and referred all disputes for arbitration.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

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

Date of Decision: 7th May 2026

Citation: Arb.P. 2075/2025 & 2119/2025 (unreported)

Core Law: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) (appointment of arbitrator); Scope of judicial scrutiny at referral stage.

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

Arb.p. 2075/2025 & arb.p. 2119/2025

Prime decor furniture and interiors llp (petitioner) vs. Mohit rubber foam india private limited & american bedding private limited (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice harish vaidyanathan shankar

Date: 7th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 – section 11(6) (power of high court to appoint arbitrator), section 11(6-a) (scope limited to existence of arbitration agreement), section 21 (commencement of

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