Under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the referral court's role is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement, leaving detailed factual and legal disputes, including 'accord and satisfaction', to be decided by 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 to adjudicate upon the disputes inter se the parties in terms of Licence Agreement dated 22.05.2024, Agreement and Addendum dated 10.02.2025, Addendum, executed between the parties. The relevant arbitration clause, being Clause “G” reads as under:

“G. Arbitration

G-1 The Parties agree that in the event of any dispute or difference between any of the Parties in respect of or concerning or connected with the interpretation or implementation of this License Agreement or arising out of this License Agreement, such dispute or difference shall be referred to a Sole Arbitrator to be mutually appointed by the parties herein in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

G-2 The arbitration proceedings shall be held in New Delhi

G-3 The decision of such arbitration shall be binding and conclusive upon the Parties and may be enforced in any court of competent jurisdiction.

G-4 The Parties to the arbitration shall equally share the costs and expenses of any such arbitration.”

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the statutory requirement under Section 21 of the Act stands duly complied with by way of Notice dated 24.11.2025.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submits that the present Petition is not maintainable since further Agreement as between the parties has been entered into, however, this Court notes that vide Order dated 29.04.2026, it was observed that a reply by way of communication dated 22.12.2025 had been preferred to the Notice under Section 21 of the Act wherein the existence of the arbitration clause was not disputed.

4. This Court also notes that time had been granted to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent to seek instructions. However, it is submitted that no instructions have been forthcoming.

5. In view of the aforesaid and considering that no dispute has been raised with regard to the existence of the arbitration agreement, this Court finds no impediment in referring the disputes arising inter se the parties to arbitration by a learned Sole Arbitrator.

6. 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, (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 pres