The Delhi High Court's order in M/s Avis India Mobility Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Starion India Pvt. Ltd., ARB.P. 838/2026, decided on 16 October 2026, is brief — and that brevity is the point. With the existence of a valid arbitration clause undisputed and settlement discussions having failed, Justice Om Prakash Shukla appointed a sole arbitrator, directed the reference to proceed under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, and left every substantive plea, from arbitrability to impleadment, for the tribunal. The order is a working model of what a Section 11 petition has become after the 2015 amendments: a gateway, not a battleground.
The petition
Avis India Mobility Solutions approached the Delhi High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator against Starion India. The parties had spent time exploring settlement; when counsel reported that no resolution could be reached, the petition was taken up for disposal. Two facts made the outcome straightforward: neither side disputed the existence of a valid arbitration clause, and both agreed that their disputes should go to arbitration.
The order and its architecture
The Court restated the governing discipline in one sentence: "the scope of enquiry is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement." That threshold being crossed, there was, in the Court’s words, no impediment to the appointment. The operative directions follow a now-settled Delhi template:
1. Appointment
Mr. Mukul Sinha, Advocate, was appointed sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
2. Entering reference
The arbitrator is to enter upon the reference within three weeks of the order.
3. Disclosures
Disclosures under Section 12(2) — the statement of independence and impartiality — must be made within three weeks of entering the reference.
4. Institutional aegis
The arbitration is to be conducted under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with fees per the DIAC Schedule of Fees.
5. Pleas preserved
All contentions — impleadment, arbitrability, jurisdiction — remain open before the tribunal; the Court’s observations bind no one on merits.
Why routing to DIAC matters
The appointment is ad hoc in form — a named sole arbitrator — but institutional in operation. Placing the reference under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre’s rules gives the parties a published fee schedule, administrative case management, and procedural timelines policed by an institution rather than negotiated afresh before the tribunal. For medium-value commercial disputes, this hybrid has become the Delhi High Court’s default: the court supplies the appointment that the parties’ clause failed to produce, and the institution supplies everything else. Parties drafting arbitration clauses can achieve the same result without a court visit by designating DIAC (or another institution) as the appointing authority in the clause itself.
Practice notes for petitioners and respondents
For a petitioner, the case illustrates the minimum viable Section 11 file: the contract containing the clause, the invocation notice under Section 21, proof of its service, and the record of the respondent’s failure to act within thirty days. Nothing more is needed, and loading the petition with merits material only invites delay. For a respondent, the lesson is the mirror image: resistance at the Section 11 stage succeeds only on the narrow ground that no arbitration agreement exists prima facie. Objections about the scope of the clause, non-arbitrable claims, necessary parties or limitation are not wasted — they are simply banked for the tribunal, where Section 16 gives the arbitrator competence to rule on his own jurisdiction.
The timeline discipline in the order also deserves notice. Three weeks to enter the reference and a further defined window for Section 12(2) disclosures mean that a party can expect a functioning tribunal within roughly a month and a half of the court order. Combined with DIAC’s administrative framework, the gap between "we have a dispute" and "we have a tribunal" in Delhi commercial practice is now measured in weeks — provided the invocation paperwork was done correctly at the start.
Settlement discussions before and during a Section 11 petition are worth attempting, but they should run on a parallel track, not as a substitute for the reference. As this order shows, the court will wait a reasonable time for negotiations — and then appoint without ceremony once they fail. A party that lets limitation run while talking settlement has traded leverage for nothing.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does a court examine in a Section 11 petition?
Following the statutory confinement of the enquiry, the referral court examines only the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. In this case the Court recorded that there was no dispute about the existence of a valid arbitration clause, and that the parties agreed to refer their disputes to arbitration — leaving no impediment to appointing a sole arbitrator.
What happens to objections about jurisdiction or arbitrability?
They survive, but before the tribunal. The Court expressly kept all pleas open — including impleadment, arbitrability and jurisdiction — to be raised before the arbitrator, and clarified that its own observations were made only for deciding the petition, with the disputes to be decided independently on their merits.
What did the Court direct about the conduct of the arbitration?
The appointed arbitrator must enter upon the reference within three weeks and make the disclosures required under Section 12(2) of the Act within three weeks of doing so. The arbitration is to be conducted under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with fees as per the DIAC schedule.
Why do parties attempt settlement before a Section 11 order?
Courts routinely give commercial parties room to settle because an agreed resolution is faster and cheaper than a contested arbitration. But as this case shows, failed negotiations carry no cost to the arbitration clause: once counsel reported that no settlement could be reached, the appointment followed in the same hearing cycle.