JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

1. The present Petition, filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“Act”], seeks the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for the purpose of resolution of disputes inter se the parties in terms of the Service Agreement dated 10.08.2022 [“Agreement”] and Addendum dated 23.02.2023 [“Addendum”], as executed between the parties.

2. The relevant clauses, being Clause 19 of the Agreement and Clause 5 of the Addendum to the Agreement, read as under:

Clause 19 of the Agreement

19. In the event any dispute arises between the parties in connection with non-payment of fees of the Second Party by the First Party the dispute shall be resolved by way of arbitration to be conducted by sole arbitrator as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The sole arbitrator shall be appointed by the Second Party and the First Party shall raise no objections against the same. The seat of arbitration shall be New Delhi. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in English. Any award made in such arbitration will be final and binding on the parties.

Clause 5 of the Addendum

5. In the event any dispute arises between the parties in connection with non-payment of fees of the Second Party by the First Party the dispute shall be resolved by way of arbitration to be conducted by sole arbitrator as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The sole arbitrator shall be appointed by both the Second Party and the First Party mutually and the seat of arbitration shall be New Delhi. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in English. Any award made in such arbitration will be final and binding on the parties.”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the legal notice dated 20.01.2026, invoking the said Arbitration Clause as per Section 21 of the Act.

4. Mr. Pankaj Seth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, on advance notice, submits that though he is not averse to the disputes being referred to Arbitration, however, an attempt may be made to try and settle the disputes through mediation.

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and, with their able assistance, perused the material placed on record.

6. At the outset, 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 Spinning¹(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 re²(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 int