$~75 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 23.01.2026 + ARB.P. 1918/2025 MS. SUMITA BANU .....Petitioner Through: Mr. N U Ahmed & Mr. Anil Kumar Yadav, Advs.

versus SMT LALITA RATHI .....Respondent Through: Dr. Anurag Bhardwaj, Mr.

Prabhu Saxena & Ms. Devyani, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act”], seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of the Service Agreement dated 11.03.2025 [“Agreement”].

2. The said Agreement contains an Arbitration Clause, being Clause 6, which reads as under:

“6. Dispute Resolution:

In the event of any dispute under this Agreement, the same shall be amicably settled between the Parties. If any dispute is not settled amicably, the same shall be referred to the sole arbitrator to be appointed mutually by both the Parties. The award given by the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on both the Parties. The language of Arbitral Proceedings shall be English. This arbitration Signature Not Verified shall be governed by The Arbitration & Conciliation Act, I 996 and the place of arbitration shall be at Delhi.”

3. The material on record indicates that the Petitioner herein invoked arbitration in terms of Section 21 of the Act vide legal notice dated 01.09.2025.

4. This Court is cognizant of the scope of interference at the stage of a Petition under Section 11 of the Act. The law with respect to the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) of the Act has been fairly well settled. A Coordinate bench of this Court, in Pradhaan Air Express Pvt Ltd v. Air Works India Engineering Pvt Ltd [2025 SCC OnLine Del 3022], has extensively dealt with the scope of interference at the stage of Section 11. The Court held as under:-

“9. The law with respect to the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act has been fairly well settled. The Supreme Court in the case of SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, while considering all earlier pronouncements including the Constitutional Bench decision of seven judges in the case of Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 & the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, In re has held that scope of inquiry at the stage of appointment of an Arbitrator is limited to the extent of prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement and nothing else.

10. It has unequivocally been held in paragraph no.114 in the case of SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd that observations made in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., and adopted in NTPC Ltd. v. SPML Infra Ltd., that the jurisdiction of the referral court when dealing with the issue of “accord and satisfaction” under Section 11 extends to weeding out ex-facie non-arbitrable and frivolous disputes would not apply after the decision of Re: Interplay. The abovenoted paragraph no.114 in the case of SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd reads as under:-

“114. In view of the observations made by this Court in In Re: Interplay (supra), it is clear that the scope of enquiry at the stage of appointment of arbitrator is Signature Not Verified limited to the scrutiny of prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement, and nothing else. For this reason, we find it difficult to hold that the observations made in Vidya Drolia (supra) and adopted in NTPC v. SPML (supra) that the jurisdiction of the referral court when dealing with the issue of “accord and satisfaction” under Section 11 extends to weeding out ex-facie non-arbitrable and frivolous disputes would continue to apply despite the subsequent decision in In Re: Interplay (supra).”

11. Ex-facie frivolity and dishonesty are the issues, which have been held to be within the scope of the Arbitral Tribunal which is equally capable of deciding upon the appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. Whi