Section 11 arbitration appointment petitions cannot be defeated by contested jurisdiction and validity objections, which the tribunal decides.

In a Section 11 petition, the court does not adjudicate contested objections such as pecuniary jurisdiction, the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, the petitioner's legal status, or cause of action. Applying Section 16, the court held that such jurisdictional and validity objections fall within the arbitral tribunal's competence. The petition for appointment of an arbitrator was therefore maintainable, and the respondent's objections were left for the arbitrator to determine.

---

---

Issues: Whether an arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 despite objections as to pecuniary jurisdiction and the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement.

Analysis: The petition was filed on the basis of an arbitration clause in the tender document. The respondent resisted the request by disputing the court's pecuniary jurisdiction, the existence of an arbitration agreement, the legal status of the petitioner, and the cause of action. The Court applied the principle that in proceedings under Section 11, the Chief Justice or designate does not undertake an adjudication of contested issues raised by the opposite party. Relying on Section 16, the Court held that objections concerning the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, as well as other jurisdictional objections, are matters for the arbitral tribunal to decide.

Conclusion: The petition was maintainable for appointment of an arbitrator, and the objections raised by the respondent were left to be determined by the arbitrator.

---