In Brief
The appellant sought leave to appeal against a High Court order rejecting an application to appoint an arbitrator. The Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeal on the facts (finding that no arbitrable dispute existed after accord and satisfaction), took the opportunity to clarify the law following the 2015 Amendment to the Arbitration Act. The Court held that Section 11(6A) limits judicial examination to the existence of a prima facie arbitration agreement, excluding preliminary issues like accord and satisfaction. The Court overruled the United India Insurance judgment as stating incorrect law, but approved the Duro Felguera approach that Section 11(6A) restricts scope. The Court also noted that the 2019 Amendment's omission of Section 11(6A) reflects a shift to institutional arbitrator appointment, not a return to pre-2015 law.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.