Under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the referral court's jurisdiction is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement, leaving detailed inquiries into validity or merits to the Arbitral Tribunal.

JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

1. In view of Notification No. 77/I-G-4/Genl.-I/DHC dated 26.05.2026, whereby the matters fixed for 28.05.2026 were directed to be taken up on 29.05.2026, the present matter is taken up today.

2. The present Petition, filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation, 1996 [“Act”], seeks appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes inter se the parties arising out of the Lease Deed dated 28.12.2023 read with Correction Deed dated 12.01.2024 [“Lease Deed”] and Agreement dated 09.09.2024.

3. The Lease Deed contains a stipulation which contemplates adjudication of disputes, arising out of the Lease Deed, by way of Arbitration. The relevant stipulation is contained in Clause 27 of the Lease Deed [“Arbitration clause”]. The same reads as follows:

“27. Dispute resolution :

The parties shall attempt to resolve any dispute arising out of or relating to this Agreement through mediation between nominated senior executives of the parties, who have authority to settle the same . If the matter is not resolved by mediation within 60 days of the initiation of that procedure, or if any party will not participate in the said procedure, the dispute may be referred to arbitration by any party to be adjudicated by the appointment of a single arbitrator to be agreed between the parties. If parties fail to appoint arbitrator with mutual consents within 30 days of the reference, the either of the party may approach Delhi Hight Court for such appointment as per law being in force. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties. The arbitration will be held in accordance with the provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and any statutory modifications or re-enactment thereof.”

4. 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 28.05.2025 [“Section 21 Notice”].

5. At this juncture, this Court deems it 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 Spg. , (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, 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 affi