The court's role under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is facilitative and procedural, limited to the prima facie verification of the existence of an arbitration agreement, leaving all substantive disputes for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide.

JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“Act”], seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes inter se the parties, arising out of the Loan Agreement dated 31.03.2024 [“Agreement”] executed between the parties.

2. The Agreement contains a dispute resolution mechanism, which contemplates adjudication of disputes, arising between the parties, by way of Arbitration. The relevant stipulation is contained as Clause 8.2 of the Agreement [“Arbitration clause”]. The same reads as follows:-

“8.2 Arbitration : Any disputes, differences, controversies and questions directly or indirectly arising at any time hereafter between the Parties or their respective representatives or assigns, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement (or the subject matter of this Agreement), including, without limitation, any question regarding its existence, validity, interpretation, construction, performance, enforcement, rights and liabilities of the Parties, or termination ("Dispute") thereof shall be finally settled by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended ("Arbitration Act"). The Dispute shall be referred to a sole arbitrator duly appointed by the Parties with mutual consent failing which the sole arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with the Arbitration Act. The language of the arbitration shall be English. The seat of the arbitration shall be at Delhi and the language of proceedings shall be English. The award rendered shall be in writing and shall set out the reasons for the arbitrator's decision. The costs and expenses of the arbitration shall be borne equally by each Party, with each Party paying for its own fees and costs including attorney fees, except as may be determined by the arbitration tribunal. Any award by the arbitration tribunal shall be final and binding.”

3. The material on record also reflects that the statutory requirement of addressing a Legal Notice under Section 21 of the Act, invoking the aforestated Arbitration clause, stands duly complied with by the Petitioner vide Legal Notice dated 07.06.2025 [“Section 21 Notice”].

4. This Court takes note of the fact that the Petitioner has placed on record, the Affidavit of service dated 10.03.2026 [“Affidavit”] duly declaring that service has been effectuated upon all Respondents through e-mail and Respondent No. 3 has been served through courier as well, while Respondent No. 2 is deemed to have been served through courier since he refused to accept the courier. The relevant documents, proving the effectuation of service upon the Respondents, is annexed with the said Affidavit.

5. Despite due service upon the Respondents, none has appeared on their behalf, either on the previous date of hearing i.e., 13.03.2026 or today.

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