206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ARB-548-2025 Date of decision : 06.02.2026 M/s Saga Restaurants LLP …….Applicant Versus Vatika Hotels Private Limited and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE Present : Mr. Lakshay Jindal, Advocate (through video conferencing), for the petitioner.

Mr. Mayank Mathur, Advocate (through video conferencing), for respondent No.1.

****

SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE

1. Instant application u/s 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’ for brevity), seeks appointment of an Arbitrator.

2. No reply is filed on behalf of the respondents.

3. The rival parties herein entered into agreement dated 19.04.2019 (Annexure P-1) read with addendum dated 07.03.2022 (Annexure P-2)

containing an arbitration clause, which reads as under :

“GOVERNING LAWS AND JURISDICTION (i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) Dispute Resolution : Parties shall amicably settle all and any disputes which may arise with respect to this License Agreement. In the event there is no amicable solution to the dispute arisen within 15 days from the date of dispute, the parties shall refer the matter to a sole arbitrator as per the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 2015. The Sole arbitrator shall be appointed by the Licensor.”

3.1 Dispute erupted between the parties. The applicant served notice dated 30.04.2025 (Annexure P-10) upon the respondents invoking arbitration clause and calling upon the respondents to concur but to no avail. Therefore, applicant invoked jurisdiction of this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator by filing this application.

4. It is seen that respondent No.2 had filed an application u/s 9 of 1996 Act bearing number ARB-145-2024 before Additional District Judge cum Presiding Judge, Exclusive Commercial Court, Gurugram which was dismissed vide order dated 05.08.2025 (Annexure P-9) by noting that the relief claimed by respondent No.2 could only be granted by an Arbitrator. This order has not been challenged by either of the parties.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, appearing virtually, could not dispute execution of arbitration agreement, exhaustion of remedy by applicant under the arbitration clause contained in the agreement between rival parties, service of notice, dispute between the parties being arbitrable and the cause not being a deadwood.

6. The law on the scope of examination u/s 11 (6) of 1996 Act is well settled. The Apex Court in Vidya Drolia Vs. Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2 SCC 1 (paragraphs 154.2, 154.3 and 154.4) held that the Court may undertake a prima facie examination at this stage and reject an application where it is manifestly and ex facie certain that the arbitration agreement is non-existent, invalid or the disputes are non-arbitrable. In this context, the relevant extract of the said judgment is as follows :

“154.2 Scope of judicial review and jurisdiction of the Court under Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration Act is identical but extremely limited and restricted.

154.3 The general rule and principle, in view of the legislative mandate clear from Act 3 of 2016 and Act 33 of 2019, and the principle of severability and competence- competence, is that the Arbitral Tribunal is the preferred first authority to determine and decide all questions of non- arbitrability. The court has been conferred power of “second look” on aspects of non-arbitrability post the award in terms of sub-clauses (i), (ii) or (iv) of Section 34 (2) (a) or sub clause (i) of Section 34 (2) (b) of the Arbitration Act.

154.4 Rarely as a demurrer the court may interfere at Section 8 or 11 stage when it is manifestly and ex facie certain that the arbitration agreement is non-existent, invalid or the disputes are non-arbitrable, though the nature and facet of non-arbitrability would, to some extent, determine the level and nature of judicial scrutiny. The restricted and limited review is to check and protect parties from being forced to arbitrate when the matter is