JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“Act”], seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes inter se the parties arising out of the Tax Invoice No. 23-24/EL/669 dated 19.12.2023 and Tax Invoice No. 23-24/EL/680 dated 28.12.2023 [“Tax Invoices”].

2. The Tax Invoices contains a Declaration, which contemplates adjudication of disputes, arising with regard to default in payment of the outstanding amount as per the Tax Invoice, by way of Arbitration. The relevant stipulation is contained as Clause 1 of the Declaration in the Tax Invoices [“Arbitration clause”]. The same reads as follows: -

“Declaration

1. in case the payment is not made within 30 days, interest @ 18% per annum shall be charged and in case of further(sic) default, the matter shall be referred to arbitration within delhi.”

3. The material on record also reflects that the statutory requirement under Section 21 of the Act for invocation of the aforestated Arbitration clause, stands duly complied with by the Petitioner vide Legal Notice dated 27.12.2024 [“Section 21 Notice”]. It is stated that the Respondent has chosen not to acknowledge or reply to the said Section 21 Notice.

4. This Court takes note of the fact that the Petitioner has placed on record, the Affidavit of service dated 22.01.2026 [“Affidavit”] duly declaring that service has been effectuated upon the Respondent through courier as well as WhatsApp. The proof of service, by way of courier on two distinct addresses of the Respondent and through WhatsApp, is annexed with the said Affidavit.

5. Despite due service upon the Respondent, none has appeared on their behalf, either on the previous date of hearing i.e., 16.03.2026 or today.

6. At this juncture, it is apposite to note that the legal position governing the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) of the Act is no longer res integra. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning¹, after taking into consideration the authoritative pronouncement of the seven-Judge Bench in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re², comprehensively delineated the contours of judicial intervention at the stage of Section 11 of the Act. The excerpt of Krish Spg (supra) reads as under:-

“(c) Judicial interference under the 1996 Act

110. The parties have been conferred with the power to decide and agree on the procedure to be adopted for appointing arbitrators. In cases where the agreed upon procedure fails, the courts have been vested with the power to appoint arbitrators upon the request of a party, to resolve the deadlock between the parties in appointing the arbitrators.

111. Section 11 of the 1996 Act is provided to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties to settle their disputes by arbitration in situations where the parties fail to appoint an arbitrator(s). The parameters of judicial review laid down for Section 8 differ from those prescribed for Section 11. The view taken in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engg. Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 618 and affirmed in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2021) 2 SCC 1 that Sections 8 and 11, respectively, of the 1996 Act are complementary in nature was legislatively overruled by the introduction of Section 11(6-A) in 2015. Thus, although both these provisions intend to compel parties to abide by their mutual intention to arbitrate, yet the scope of powers conferred upon the courts under both the sections are different.

112. The difference between Sections 8 and 11, respectively, of the 1996 Act is also evident from the scope of these provisions. Some of these differences are:

112.1. While Section 8 empowers any “judicial authority” to refer the parties to arbitration, under Section 11, the power to refer has been exclusively conferred upon the High Court and the Supreme Court.

112.2. Under Section 37, an a