The limited scope of judicial review under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 confirms that existence of an arbitration agreement alone is examined, without delving into the merits of the underlying disputes.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. This petition has been filed under Section 11(6) and Section 11(8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `A&C Act, 1996.) with the following prayers:

"In view of the above submissions, the petitioner humbly prays before this Hon'ble Court that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to-

i. Appoint a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes/claims between the Petitioner and the Respondent arising out of the Services Agreement and/or;

ii. Pass any such orders that this Hon'ble Court may deem fir and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

2. It is a case wherein the petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act of 1956 which holds a long-standing business in the managing hospitality sector. It is submitted that with the investment of considerable time and monies, the petitioner has developed a unique and distinctive system to provide high quality accommodation services.

3. The respondent is a private limited company involved in the business of providing material transportation, warehousing and logistics movements.

4. It is submitted that in the year 2020, respondent approached the petitioner representing that it has the requisite expertise, experience, and resources to provide services like dismantling, material packing, transportation and warehouse storage. Thereafter, based on the respondent's representation a Service Agreement (herein referred as "Agreement") dated June 26, 2020, was entered into by parties, i.e., petitioner and respondent.

5. As per the Service Agreement dated June 26, 2020, the respondent was to perform certain "services". As per the Agreement, the services were in relation to end-to-end dismantling, packing and transportation of materials from identified OYO branded hotel properties located at various locations across India and storing them in the respondent's warehouses. Further, the Agreement stated the obligations of the respondent to include transportation and storage of the goods/inventory of the petitioner at the respondent's warehouses and thereafter raising invoices on the petitioner in relation thereto. At the time when the Agreement commenced, the respondent picked up goods of the petitioner and stored the same in its warehouses located at various locations in different cities. Consequently, emails dated July 11, 2020 and August 22, 2020 sent by the respondent confirmed the quantities of the material so picked.

6. Mr. Prashanto Chandra Sen, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is aggrieved by the failure of performance of the Agreement dated June 26, 2020, by the respondent. The respondent failed to comply with Clause 3.5 in Annexure I of the Agreement. The respondent under the said provision was obligated to keep written records and report the progress of the services. Furthermore, at the time of taking delivery of goods, the respondent was indebted to store them in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement dated June 26, 2020 as well as undertake all necessary documentation associated with it, like receipt, storage and handling as per the Agreement.

7. It is submitted that the respondent in violation of the terms of the Agreement dated June 26, 2020, had altered the inventory list of goods of the petitioner thereby showing a shortfall of goods