JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996¹1 Act, seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes inter se parties, arising out of the Collaboration Agreement dated 03.04.2019²2 Agreement.

2. The said Agreement contains an Arbitration Clause, being Clause 33, which reads as under:

“33. That in case any difference of opinion arising between the parties in regard to the interpretation of the scope of this Agreement both the parties shall resolve the said dispute through an Arbitrator at Delhi to be appointed by both the parties with mutual consent.”

3. The material on record further indicates that the statutory requirement under Section 21 of the Act stands satisfied vide Notice dated 07.11.2024.

4. At the outset, this Court takes note of the fact that vide Order dated 18.09.2025, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have been deleted from the array of parties in the present Petition. Accordingly, the disputes herein are confined to the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 4 vehemently raises objections to the reference of the disputes, inter se parties, to Arbitration on the ground that the Petitioner has allegedly failed to perform his contractual obligations and that the disputes involve elements of fraud, said to have been played upon the Respondents.

6. He further submits that the financial condition of Respondent No. 4 is not sound and that it may not be in a position to bear the expenses of the Arbitration proceedings.

7. This Court has heard the objections raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 4.

8. Insofar as the first objection is concerned, this Court is of the view that the same pertains to the merits of the disputes between the parties, including the issue of alleged non-performance by the Petitioner and in this regard, the learned Arbitrator will be in a better position to appreciate and consider this aspect.

9. With respect to the second objection raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 4, this Court is of the view that the same is also a matter which falls outside the limited scope of jurisdiction provided under Section 11 of the Act and can be appropriately considered by the learned Arbitrator.

10. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 4, on instructions from his clients (present in person), submits that the disputes between the parties may be referred to Arbitration for adjudication.

11. 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 Spinning³3 (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 re⁴4 (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