Under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court's role is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of a valid arbitration agreement; all other issues are left to the Arbitral Tribunal.

JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

1. The present Petition, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (The Act), seeks the appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes that are stated to have arisen inter se the parties in terms of Clause 19 of the Loan Agreement dated 30.01.2019. The said clause reads as follows:

“19. DISPUTE RESOLUTION, GOYERNING LAW AND JURISDICTION

19.1 If any dispute, difference or claim arises between the Obligors and the Lender in connection with the Facility or the security or as to the interpretation, validity, implementation or effect of the Facility Documents or as to the rights and liabilities of the parties under the Facility Documents or alleged breach of the Facility Documents or anything done or omitted to be done pursuant to the Facility Documents, the same shall be settled by arbitration to be held in Mumbai/Delhi/Kolkata/Chennai as may be decided by the Lender in Accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or any statutory amendments thereto and shall he referred to a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Lender. The award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on all parties concerned.

19.2 The Facility Documents shall be governed by the laws of India.

19.3 The Borrower agrees that subject to the provisions of Clause 19.1 above, the courts of Mumbai or the courts at the venue of arbitration decided by the Lender in accordance with Clause 19.1 above alone shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and try all matters arising from and out of the Facility Documents.”

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the Respondents are borrowers/co-borrowers under the Loan Agreement dated 30.01.2019. It is further submitted that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 stand served, as recorded vide Order date 23.01.2026. He also relies upon the Affidavit of Service dated 17.03.2026 to contend that service has been effected upon Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

3. It is further submitted that the requirement of the notice under Section 21 of the Act stands fulfilled in view of the communication dated 07.08.2024.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and is of the view that, despite service, the Respondents have chosen not to either participate or file any Reply to the present Petition.

5. In view thereof, and in view of the fact that there exists a arbitration agreement and the legal mandate under Section 21 also stands satisfied, there is no impediment in referring the disputes between the parties for arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator.

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)