Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6485
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, J
Extramarks Education India Pvt Ltd – Appellant
Versus
G D Goenka Public School – Respondent
ARB.P. 1619/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Zeeshan Hashmi, Mitali Yadav, Ankit Parashar
For the Respondents: Swayamprabha Saraswati
The court's role in an arbitration appointment petition is strictly limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement. Substantive disputes and contested issues must be resolved by the arbitral tribunal, consistent with the principles of minimal judicial interference and arbitral autonomy.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 - Appointment of arbitrator - Scope of judicial scrutiny - Referral court is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement and cannot undertake a contested or laborious enquiry into the merits of the dispute. (Paras 6, 7)
(B) Arbitration - Judicial non-interference - The role of the court at this stage is purely facilitative to give effect to the mutually agreed dispute resolution mechanism - All contested factual or legal issues remain open for adjudication before the arbitral tribunal, which has the exclusive competence to decide such matters. (Paras 8, 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner moved the court seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from a commercial agreement. The respondent represented its lack of objection to the appointment, and the required statutory notice was found to be duly served.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the agreement contained a valid arbitration clause and satisfied the procedural requirements. It concluded that the court's jurisdiction is essentially facilitative and must avoid any adjudication on the merits of the underlying claims, leaving these to the discretion of the appointed neutral party.
Issues: The central issue was the scope of judicial interference under the governing statute and whether the court should examine contested claims during the process of appointing an arbitrator.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that the scope of enquiry at the threshold of appointment is restricted to a prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement. To preserve the sanctity of arbitral autonomy and ensure expeditious disposal, all substantive arguments must be reserved for the tribunal's consideration.
Result: Petition allowed. Sole arbitrator appointed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural context for appointment of arbitrator. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 10) |
| 2. parties consent to arbitral adjudication. (Para 5) |
| 3. scope of section 11 is prima facie scrutiny. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. validation of arbitration agreement warrants appointment. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. formal appointment and procedural directions for arbitration. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGEMENT (ORAL)
1. In view of Notification No. 64/G-4/Genl.-I/DHC dated 27.02.2026, the present matter which was previously listed on 03.03.2026, has been listed today.
2. The present Petition has been filed under Section 11 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 Agreement dated 04.01.2016 [“Agreement”].
3. The material on record reflects that the Agreement stipulates a dispute resolution mechanism, which contemplates reference of disputes thereunder, inter se the parties, to Arbitration. The relevant stipulation is contained in Clause 12 of the Agreement [“Arbitration clause”]. The relevant portion of the same reads as follows:-
“12. Governing Law, Jurisdiction and Dispute Resolution
This agreement shall be governed by the laws of India and courts situated at Delhi alone shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction. Any disputes arising out of the Agreement shall be referred to a sole arbitrator to be appointed by EM. The School agrees that the fact that the sol arbitrator shall be appointed by EM shall not be used by the School to raise pleas of bias or prejudice against the sole arbitrator.”
4. Material on record further indicates that the Notice under Section 21 was issued on 29.12.2023.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, on instructions, submits that she has no objection to the reliefs as sought for being granted and for the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes as between the parties.
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 Spinning, (2024) 12 SCC 1, 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 re11 (2024) 6 SCC 1, 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 Sec
