JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“Act”], seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes inter se the parties arising out of work contract dated 03.12.2021 [“Contract”].

2. The material on record reflects that the General Conditions of Contract [“GCC”] stipulates a dispute resolution mechanism, which contemplates reference of disputes thereunder, inter se the parties, to Arbitration. The relevant stipulation is contained in the Clause 9 of the GCC [“Arbitration Clause”]. The relevant portion of the same reads as follows: -

“9.0.0.0 ARBITRATION

9.0.1.0 Subject to the provisions of Clauses 6.7.1.0, 6.7.2.0

and 9.0.2.0 hereof, any dispute arising out of a Notified Claim of the Contractor included in the Final Bill of the Contractor in accordance with the provisions of Clause 6.6.3.0 hereof, and any dispute arising out of any claim(s) of the Owner against the Contractor shall be referred to the arbitration of a Sole Arbitrator selected in accordance with the provisions of Clause 9.0.1.1 hereof. It is specifically agreed that the Owner may prefer its claim(s) against the Contractor as counter claim(s), if a Notified Claim of the contractor has been referred to arbitration. The Contractor shall not, however, be entitled to raise as a set off defence or counter claim any claim which is not a Notified Claim included in the Contractor’s Final Bill in accordance with the provisions of Clause 6.6.3.0 hereof.”

3. The material on record further reflects that the statutory requirement of issuing a Legal Notice under Section 21 of the Act, invoking the aforesaid Arbitration clause, stands duly complied by the Petitioner vide Legal Notice dated 13.03.2024 [“Section 21 Notice”].

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, on instructions, submits that he has no objection to the disputes inter se the parties raised herein being referred to arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator in terms of the said Arbitration Clause.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the aggregate value of the Petitioner’s claims is approximately ₹3 lakhs, while the learned counsel for the Respondent submits that counter-claims of the Respondent are approximately ₹6 lakhs, thereby bringing the aggregate of the disputes to approximately ₹10 lakhs.

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 re, (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