The scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is limited to the prima facie examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement, leaving detailed factual and legal disputes for the Arbitral Tribunal.

JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking the appointment of a sole Arbitrator for the purpose of adjudicating the disputes inter se the parties that are stated to have arisen in terms of Clause 2.3 of the Supplementary Agreement dated 13.03.2019, Agreement, as between the parties. Clause 2.3 of the said Agreement reads as under:

“2.3 In the case of any dispute, interpretation, controversy or claim arising out of or in connection with this Agreement and/or Compensation Agreement, including any question regarding its existence, validity, breach or termination, between any of the Parties, such Parties shall attempt to first resolve such dispute or claim through discussions. If the dispute is not resolved through such discussions within 30 days after one disputing Party has served a written notice on the other disputing Party requesting the commencement of discussions, such dispute shall be finally settled through arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as in force on the date hereof or any subsequent amendment thereof, by a sole arbitrator to be mutually decided by the Parties, who shall be a retired judge of a High Court of any State in India. The seat and venue of arbitration shall be New Delhi and the language of the arbitration proceedings shall be English. The Parties agree and acknowledge that the Clause 16 of the Compensation Agreement stands deleted in its entirety and be stand substituted with Clause 2.3 of this Agreement.”

3. Material on record further indicates that the Notice under Section 21 of the Act was issued to the Respondents on 01.02.2024.

4. Mr. Kartik Nayar, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Respondents, on instructions, submits that he has no objection to the disputes as raised herein being referred to adjudication by way of Arbitration.

5. In this backdrop, 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 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 abi