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 a valid arbitration agreement, leaving detailed factual or legal adjudications to the Arbitral Tribunal.

JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

1. The present Petition, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeks the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes stated to have arisen inter se the parties in terms of the Loan Agreement dated 08.03.2025, Agreement, as executed between the parties. The relevant Arbitration clauses of the Agreement, being Clauses 18 to 20, read as follows:

“18. Any dispute arising between the Parties shall be subject to adjudication of a Sole Arbitrator, who shall be appointed with the written consent of the Parties or by the courts at New Delhi, India.

19. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in Delhi and any proceedings arising therefrom or under any award / interim order by the Sole Arbitrator shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Courts at New Delhi, India only.

20. The arbitration proceedings shall be held at New Delhi in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, as statutorily amended from time to time.”

2. Material on record reveals that the statutory requirement of notice under Section 21 of the Act stands duly complied with by the Petitioner vide Notice dated 17.03.2026.

3. The service report indicates that the Respondents stand duly served and, subsequent to completion of service, the matter had been listed on 14.05.2026 for appearance on behalf of the Respondents; however, none appeared on their behalf, nor has any reply been filed, and the said position continues even as on date.

4. In view of the aforesaid, and considering that all statutory requirements stand fulfilled, this Court is of the view that despite due service, the Respondents have chosen neither to enter an appearance nor participate in the present proceedings. Accordingly, this Court finds no impediment in referring the disputes arising inter se the parties to Arbitration.

5. At this juncture, it is also 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 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 com