Media Update | Appointment of Sole Arbitrator by Delhi High Court

Reinforcing the Limited Scope of Section 11 – A Significant Win for the Arbitration Advocate

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, by its judgment dated 18 December 2025 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal in ARB.P. 1495/2025 & O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 264/2025, reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial interference at the pre-referral stage under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The matter involved Sai Maa Vishnu Shakti Trust &Anr. vs. Shri Satua Baba Ashram Trust &Anr., wherein the Court appointed a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising out of a Settlement Agreement dated 7 May 2024.

Key Highlights of the Judgment

1. Scope of Section 11 – Prima Facie Examination Only

    The respondents alleged that the Settlement Agreement containing the arbitration clause was forged and sought forensic examination of signatures at the Section 11 stage.

    The Court held that:

    • At the pre-referral stage, the Court must only examine the existence of an arbitration agreement.
    • Detailed factual controversies, including allegations of forgery, are to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal.
    • The referral court must avoid conducting a mini-trial.

    The Court relied upon the judgments in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation (2021) 2 SCC 1 and In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements Under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and Stamp Act 1899 (2024) 6 SCC 1, reinforcing the doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz.

    2. Appointment of Sole Arbitrator

    The Court appointed Justice (Retd.) S.P. Garg as the Sole Arbitrator. The arbitral proceedings are to be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) in accordance with its rules.

    All rights and objections, including challenges to the genuineness of signatures and arbitrability of claims, have been expressly left open for adjudication before the Tribunal.

    Why This Decision Matters

    This order strengthens India’s pro-arbitration jurisprudence by:

    • Preventing delay tactics at the referral stage
    • Upholding party autonomy
    • Respecting the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Section 16
    • Reinforcing efficiency in commercial dispute resolution

    For any arbitration lawyer, this ruling serves as a clear reminder that Section 11 proceedings are not meant to convert into evidentiary trials.

    Conclusion

    The Delhi High Court’s ruling dated 18 December 2025 marks yet another step toward strengthening India’s arbitration-friendly legal framework. It underscores the disciplined approach courts are expected to follow while dealing with Section 11 petitions.

    As an experienced arbitration advocate, navigating such jurisdictional challenges effectively can make the difference between procedural delay and swift constitution of the Tribunal.

    Mr. Virender Ganda, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Vishal Ganda (our Managing Partner) and Mr. Ayandeb Mitra (Associate Partner with our firm) represented the Petitioner.