The modern Section 11 petition is designed to be short. On 27 October 2026, in Meena Bazaar v. Deepak Balutia, ARB.P. 1728/2026, Justice Om Prakash Shukla of the Delhi High Court disposed of an appointment petition in a judgment of three pages: both sides accepted that their dispute could go to arbitration, the court confirmed the prima facie existence of a valid arbitration clause, appointed Ms. Priya Hingorani, Senior Advocate, as sole arbitrator, and placed the arbitration under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre. Everything else — arbitrability, jurisdiction, merits — was expressly left to the tribunal.
A three-page judgment, by design
The petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 sought the appointment of a sole arbitrator. By the time the matter was heard, counsel for both parties agreed that the disputes could be referred. The court recorded two findings and no more: that the scope of enquiry under Section 11 is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, and that there was no dispute about the existence of a valid arbitration clause between the parties. On that footing, the appointment followed.
The operative directions are a useful template of current Delhi practice: the sole arbitrator to enter upon the reference within three weeks; disclosures under Section 12(2) within three weeks of entering the reference; the arbitration to be conducted under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with fees per the DIAC schedule; all pleas, including arbitrability and jurisdiction, open before the tribunal; and the tribunal to decide uninfluenced by any observation in the appointment order.
The shrinking of Section 11 — and why it matters
A generation ago, appointment petitions were trials in miniature: courts examined live claims, dead claims, accord and satisfaction, limitation. The 2015 insertion of Section 11(6A) confined the enquiry to the existence of the agreement, and the Supreme Court's subsequent jurisprudence — through the referral-stage decisions and the seven-judge bench on arbitration clauses in unstamped agreements — settled that the referral court looks only for a prima facie arbitration agreement, leaving everything substantive to the tribunal under Section 16.
The practical consequence appears in exactly this kind of order. Where the clause's existence is undisputed, the petition can and should be disposed of in a single hearing. Respondents gain nothing by contesting the reference on grounds the tribunal must decide anyway; petitioners gain nothing by over-pleading. The real contest simply relocates to the arbitration.
What each side should take from the order
Practical pointers
Keep Section 11 petitions lean: the agreement, the invocation notice, the failure of the agreed mechanism, and the prayer. Substantive grievances belong in the statement of claim.
Reserving pleas before the arbitrator is not a formality — raise jurisdictional objections under Section 16 at the earliest, ordinarily not later than the statement of defence.
Diary the tribunal's timelines from the date it enters the reference; Section 29A's clock governs domestic awards and extensions need judicial or, where applicable, institutional sanction.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does a court actually examine in a Section 11 petition?
After the 2015 amendment and the Supreme Court's decisions culminating in the seven-judge ruling on the scope of referral jurisdiction, the court's enquiry is confined to the prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement. Questions of validity, arbitrability, limitation and jurisdiction are, as this order restates, for the arbitral tribunal.
What happens after the arbitrator is appointed?
The arbitrator enters upon the reference — here within three weeks — and must furnish a disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Act regarding independence and impartiality. Proceedings then run under the institutional rules chosen, in this case those of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, whose fee schedule also governs.
Can a party still object to the tribunal's jurisdiction after a Section 11 appointment?
Yes. The order expressly preserved all pleas, including objections as to arbitrability and jurisdiction, before the arbitrator. Section 16 of the Act embodies the kompetenz-kompetenz principle: the tribunal rules on its own jurisdiction, subject to later challenge under Sections 34 and 37.
Why do courts route ad hoc appointments through institutions like DIAC?
Institutional administration supplies what ad hoc arbitration lacks: a published fee schedule, case management, disclosure protocols and procedural timelines. Delhi High Court appointments routinely place the arbitration under the DIAC's aegis, which reduces fee disputes and keeps the reference moving.