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 the adjudication of contentious factual or legal issues to 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 Clause 9 of the Marketing Service Agreement dated 10.03.2023, Agreement, as executed between the parties. The said clause reads as under:

“9. APPLICABLE LAW AND JURISDICTION

This Agreement shall be governed by and construed both as to validity and performance in accordance with the laws of India with the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts at New Delhi. In the event a dispute arises out of or in relation to or in connection with the existence, validity, interpretation, implementation, termination, alleged breach or breach of this Agreement, the dispute shall also so far as it is possible, be settled amicably through consultation between representatives nominated by the Parties to the dispute. If after 90 (ninety) days of consultation, the representatives of the Parties to the dispute have failed to reach an amicable settlement on the dispute, such dispute shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended from time to time, at the request of either of the Parties upon written notice to that effect to the other. The Parties shall continue to perform their respective obligations under this Agreement to the extent possible notwithstanding commencement of any proceedings in accordance with this clause. Each Party shall appoint one arbitrator and the two arbitrators shall appoint the third or the presiding arbitrator. Any arbitration proceeding conducted in accordance with this Section shall be in English language and shall take place in New Delhi, India. Each Party will bear its own costs with respect to the arbitration proceedings.”

2. The material on record indicates that the statutory requirement of a Notice under Section 21 of the Act for invoking the Arbitration stands fulfilled vide Notice dated 23.04.2025.

3. This Court notes that the Respondent stands duly served, and the said position also stands recorded in the Order dated 06.04.2026. However, the present matter had been adjourned to today only to afford the Respondent a further opportunity to enter an appearance and/or file a reply before this Court. Despite the same, there is no appearance and/or reply on behalf of the Respondent even today.

4. In view of the aforesaid, and considering that all statutory requirements stand duly fulfilled, this Court is of the considered opinion that, despite due service, the Respondent has chosen neither to participate in the present proceedings nor to contest the same and therefore, no impediment subsists to the disputes raised in the present Petition being referred for adjudication by way of Arbitration.

5. At this juncture, this Court deems 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 Spinning³(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 pa