Under the relevant arbitration legislation, the jurisdiction of a court at the appointment stage is strictly limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement. Contentious legal or factual disputes are reserved exclusively for the consideration of the arbitral tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

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 to adjudicate the disputes, arising out of the Facility Agreement dated 30.05.2024, [Agreement].

2. The Agreement contains a stipulation which contemplates adjudication of disputes, arising out of the Agreement, by way of Arbitration. The relevant stipulation is contained in Clause 20 of the Agreement, [Arbitration clause]. The relevant portion, being Clause 20.1, reads as follows:

“20. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

20.1 All disputes, claims, controversy or difference or questions between the Parties arising out of or relating to the Facility Documents (including a dispute relating to the validity or existence of any Facility Documents) shall be referred to arbitration by a sole arbitrator where both Parties shall mutually decide and appoint one arbitrator. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including the statutory amendments thereof. The venue, place and the seat of arbitration shall be New Delhi and the language of the arbitration shall be English. The award including interim award(s) of the arbitral tribunal shall be final, conclusive and binding on all the Parties concerned. The arbitral tribunal may, from time to time, lay down the procedure to be followed in conducting the arbitration proceedings and shall conduct the arbitration proceedings in such manner as it considers appropriate.”

3. The material on record also reflects that the statutory requirement under Section 21 of the Act for invocation of the aforestated Arbitration clause, stands duly complied with by the Petitioner vide Legal Notice dated 06.11.2024, [Section 21 Notice].

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submits, on instructions, that she has no objection to the disputes, as between the parties, being referred to Arbitration by a learned Sole Arbitrator.

5. She, however, submits that the Petitioner had initiated Arbitration as against the parties and in which proceedings the learned Arbitrator has recused himself since the appointment of the Arbitrator was done unilaterally by the Petitioner.

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 o