Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6544
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, J
PYRAMID MEDITATION CENTRE – Appellant
Versus
INNOVATIVE PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
ARB.P.-775/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R. Abhishek, Praveen Kumar, Sidhi Pramodh Rayudu
For the Respondents: Neeraj Gupta, Tajinder Kaur, Deepshikha Gupta
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) - Appointment of arbitrator - Scope of judicial scrutiny at referral stage confined to prima facie examination of existence of a valid arbitration agreement (Section 7) - Referral court not to examine validity or merits of disputes - Issues such as accord and satisfaction belong to arbitral tribunal - Principle reaffirmed following authoritative decisions. (Paras 10-11)
(B) Arbitration - Mediation before arbitration - Court may direct parties to explore mediation before appointing arbitrator if both parties agree - Such direction does not affect the validity of the arbitration clause or the eventual appointment. (Paras 6-9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator for disputes arising out of two Fund Raising Agreements dated 08.04.2024 and 16.04.2024. Both agreements contained an identical arbitration clause providing for a sole arbitrator appointed by mutual discussion between the CEO of the first party and the Chief Functionary of the second party, with seat at New Delhi. The petitioner had sent a legal notice under Section 21 of the Act invoking arbitration. The respondent appeared and had no objection to arbitration but requested that the parties first attempt mediation in view of the nature and valuation of the dispute (approx. Rs. 20 lakhs).
Findings of Court:
The court found that the agreements contain a valid arbitration clause, that the Section 21 notice was duly complied with, and that the parties were ad idem that disputes be referred to arbitration after exploring mediation. Relying on the legal position laid down in recent Supreme Court decisions, the court held that its jurisdiction under Section 11(6) is extremely circumscribed - limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement. All other contentions, including any issues of accord and satisfaction, are for the arbitral tribunal to decide. The court directed the parties to approach the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre 'SAMADHAN' for mediation within four weeks, and subject to the outcome, referred the matter to arbitration appointing Mr. Atul Verma, Advocate, as sole arbitrator.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) given the presence of a valid arbitration clause and the respondent's consent, and whether mediation could be ordered before the arbitrator enters upon reference.
Ratio Decidendi: The referral court under Section 11(6) is only to examine the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement (as defined in Section 7) and cannot delve into factual or legal controversies such as accord and satisfaction, which are within the exclusive domain of the arbitral tribunal. The court’s role is facilitative and procedural, giving effect to the parties' agreed dispute resolution mechanism.
Result: Petition disposed of; parties directed to attempt mediation; subject to outcome, arbitration to proceed before the appointed sole arbitrator.
JUDGEMENT (ORAL)
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
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 Fund Raising Agreement 08.04.2024 and Fund Raising Agreement dated 16.04.2024 [“Agreements”].
2. The material on record reflects that the Agreements stipulate an identical dispute resolution mechanism, which contemplates reference of disputes thereunder, inter se the parties, to Arbitration. The relevant stipulation is contained in Article 6.1 of both the Agreements [“Arbitration clause”]. The said Arbitration Clause reads as follows:-
“Article 6
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
6.1
Any controversy or dispute in connection with this agreement which cannot be amicably settled by the parties shall be decided by recourse to arbitration by a sole arbitrator, appointed by mutual discussion between The CEO of the First Party and The Chief Functionary of the second Party, which will be governed under the provisions of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, with the place of Arbitration at New Delhi. In case of any dispute the parties shall be bound to give the other party a due notice of 30 days for invoking the provision under this clause i.e. for appointment of arbitrator.
The arbitral award shall be final and binding on both parties. The courts at New Delhi, India shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of all matters concerning this Agreement.”
3. The material on record further reflects that the statutory requirement of addressing a Legal Notice under Section 21 of the Act, invoking the aforestated Arbitration clause, stands duly complied with by the Petitioner vide Legal Notice dated 18.07.2025 [“Section 21 Notice”], whereby the Petitioner has sought to invoke the Arbitration Clause of both the Agreements by way of a common Section 21 Notice.
4. Issue Notice.
5. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel, appearing on advance service, accepts Notice on behalf of the Respondent.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, on instructions, submits that he has no objection to the disputes, arising out of the said Agreements, inter se the parties, being referred for adjudication by way of arbitration, in consonance with the Arbitration clause contained therein.
7. Learned counsel however submits that, considering the nature and valuation of the dispute inter se the parties, an amicable settlement is likely to be reached at. He therefore requests that, in the meanwhile, the parties may be permitted to seek assistance of a mediator, before the learned Arbitrator, so appointed, enters into reference.
8. In view of the aforesaid submission by the learned counsel for the Respondent, the parties are hereby directed to approach the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre „SAMADHAN‟ for the purpose of appointment of Mediator and to explore the possibility of reaching an amicable settlement.
9. Accordingly, list before Delhi High Court Mediation Centre on 30.04.2026, and subject to the outcome of the aforesaid mediation proceedings within a period of four (04) weeks, the matter be referred to Arbitration.
10. 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 a
