Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The arbitration agreement in this case permits individual members of a consortium to invoke arbitration under certain conditions, with the referral court's role limited to establishing the existence of the arbitration agreement (!) (!) .

2. The jurisdiction of the referral court under Section 11 is confined to a prima facie determination of whether an arbitration agreement exists; it is not authorized to conduct a detailed inquiry into the validity or capacity of the parties to invoke arbitration (!) (!) .

3. The legislative framework emphasizes minimal judicial intervention at the pre-arbitration stage, restricting the court’s inquiry to whether a prima facie arbitration agreement exists, leaving substantive issues to be resolved by the arbitral tribunal (!) (!) .

4. The question of whether an individual consortium member can invoke arbitration independently depends on the specific contractual terms, including the scope and nature of the arbitration clause, as well as the provisions of the consortium agreement (!) .

5. The scope of the referral court’s inquiry is limited to a prima facie assessment of whether the party invoking arbitration is a "party" to the arbitration agreement, with the detailed determination of jurisdiction and capacity reserved for the arbitral tribunal (!) (!) .

6. The existence of an arbitration agreement is generally presumed to be valid, and the burden of proof lies with the party asserting its existence; the court should not delve into detailed evidence or conduct a mini-trial at this stage (!) .

7. The arbitration agreement, as incorporated into the contractual framework through specific clauses and purchase orders, can be invoked by individual consortium members if they are deemed to be veritable parties to the agreement, based on their involvement and conduct (!) (!) .

8. The legal status of a consortium, unless expressly incorporated as a separate legal entity, does not confer independent legal personality, and individual members' capacity to invoke arbitration must be assessed based on contractual terms and their conduct (!) .

9. The arbitral tribunal has the authority to examine questions related to the validity, scope, and capacity to invoke arbitration, including whether a non-signatory party is bound by the arbitration agreement, based on factual and legal considerations (!) (!) .

10. Once the court is satisfied that a prima facie arbitration agreement exists, it should refrain from further inquiry and proceed to refer the dispute to arbitration, leaving all substantive and jurisdictional questions to be decided by the arbitral tribunal (!) (!) .

11. The arbitration process can encompass claims arising from the same contractual framework, even if the contractual relationship has bifurcated or changed due to insolvency or other circumstances, provided the arbitration agreement remains applicable (!) .

12. The decision to constitute an arbitral tribunal under the relevant statutory provisions is within the court's jurisdiction once a prima facie case for arbitration is established, and the tribunal will handle all objections related to the validity and maintainability of the arbitration (!) .

13. The appeals in this case were dismissed, affirming that the High Court did not err in referring the matter to arbitration, and emphasizing that the role of the court is limited to a preliminary assessment of the arbitration agreement's existence (!) .

These points collectively highlight the legal principles governing the scope of judicial intervention at the pre-arbitration stage, the criteria for invoking arbitration by consortium members, and the delineation of roles between courts and arbitral tribunals.