IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17.04.2026 Colstay Private Limited …….Applicant Versus Lamrin Tech Skill University and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE Present: Ms. Shakshi Goyal, Advocate, (through V.C.)

for the applicant.

Mr. Jatin Bansal, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

****

SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE( Oral )

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

2. Reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 perused.

3. The rival parties herein entered into Operation and Management Services agreement dated 15.04.2023 (Annexure A-1) containing an arbitration clause as follows:

18. GOVERNING LAW AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION

18.1. This Agreement shall be governed by the Indian law. Subject to Clause 18.2. in respect of all matters arising out of or relating to this Agreement, the courts of SBS Nagar, Punjab India shall have exclusive jurisdiction.

18.2. Any dispute or difference arising out of or in connection with the interpretation or implementation of the Agreement and/or the applicable Annexures, or out of or in connection with the breach, or alleged breach of this Agreement ("Dispute"), which cannot be amicably resolved between the University and/or Master Facilitator and/or CPL shall be referred to and settled by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by a sole arbitrator appointed by the Parties mutually. The seat and venue of the arbitration proceedings shall be Chandigarh and the language of the arbitration shall be English. Any arbitration award by the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the parties, shall not be subject to appeal, and shall be enforced by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.

18.3. During the arbitration, the Parties shall continue to fulfil their respective obligations under this Agreement except for such obligations, which are the subject matter of the arbitration.”

3.1. Dispute erupted between the parties. The applicant served notice dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure A-7) upon respondents seeking resolution of dispute through Sole Arbitrator, but to no avail.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has disputed agreement on account of alleged inconsistencies in execution, and scope of the arbitration agreement.

4.1. This Court has considered the objections raised by the respondents. However, at the stage of Section 11(6), the scope of examination is confined to a prima facie determination of: (a) existence of arbitration agreement, and (b) whether the disputes are manifestly arbitrable.

5. The law regarding the scope of examination under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is well settled. Unless it is ex facie clear that the arbitration agreement is non-existent, invalid, or the disputes are demonstrably non-arbitrable, the matter ought to be referred to arbitration, leaving all issues open to be decided by the learned Arbitrator.

6. The Apex Court in Vidya Drolia Vs. Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2 SCC 1, NTPC Ltd. Vs. SPML Infra Ltd. (2023) 9 SCC 385, and DLF Home Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajapura Homes (P) Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 675, has consistently held that the referral Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11, is not expected to conduct a mini trial or enter into a detailed adjudication of disputed questions. The rule is, “when in doubt, do refer.”

7. Pre-requisites for invoking powers under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 appear to be satisfied, as the objections raised by the respondents do not constitute a valid impediment to the exercise of this Court’s power to appoint an arbitrator as this Court does not find the case to be one of “deadwood” or a case where non-arbitrability is ex facie apparent.

8. Accordingly, this application is allowed.

8.1 Mr. Justice Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, former Judge of this Court, residing at House No. 154, Sector 35-