Arbitrability under Section 11 stays with the arbitral tribunal; the court cannot withhold claims as excepted matters.

In a section 11 proceeding under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court's role is limited to securing appointment of an arbitrator when the agreed procedure fails; it cannot decide disputed questions of arbitrability, the scope of the arbitration agreement, or whether particular claims are excepted matters. Those jurisdictional objections are for the arbitral tribunal to determine under section 16. The Delhi HC therefore held that the appointing authority could not withhold reference of some claims on arbitrability grounds, and the nominated arbitrator remained free to decide all objections, including whether any claim fell outside the scope of arbitration.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in an application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court could examine the arbitrability of particular claims and withhold reference of some claims as excepted matters, and whether the applicant could seek appointment of an arbitrator when the appointing authority had not referred all disputes.

Analysis: The Act, which applied because the arbitration clause was invoked after its commencement, places the power of appointment under section 11 on the Chief Justice or his designate only to secure the appointment of an arbitrator when the agreed procedure fails. Questions relating to the existence, validity, scope of the arbitration agreement, the arbitrability of claims, and the jurisdiction of the tribunal are to be decided by the arbitral tribunal itself under section 16. On that footing, the appointing authority could not segregate claims and decide that some were excepted matters. The reliance on section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was misplaced because that provision operated in a different procedural setting.

Conclusion: The Court held that it could not decide the arbitrability of the disputed claims in a section 11 proceeding, and the applicant was entitled to approach the Court because the appointment procedure had not been properly followed. The nominated arbitrator was left free to decide objections, including whether any claim was beyond the scope of arbitration.

Final Conclusion: The appointment reference was allowed to stand for the disputes not expressly referred, and the objections as to excepted matters were left to be decided by the arbitrator.

Ratio Decidendi: In a proceeding under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court or its designate is confined to securing the appointment of an arbitrator and cannot adjudicate disputed questions of arbitrability or the scope of reference, which fall within the arbitral tribunal's competence under section 16.

---