Arbitrator appointment jurisdiction is limited to preliminary questions, and the arbitration clause survives a challenge to the main contract.

In proceedings for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the court's role is confined to preliminary questions such as jurisdiction, existence of an arbitration agreement, party status, and whether a live claim exists; it cannot conduct a detailed merits enquiry or decide disputed facts as if trying the suit. The decision also confirms that an arbitration clause is separable from the main contract and survives even where the underlying agreement is alleged to be void. The matter was therefore required to be reconsidered within the limited referral jurisdiction, with the arbitration agreement treated as independently enforceable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the designated Judge could undertake a detailed merits enquiry instead of confining himself to preliminary jurisdictional questions; (ii) whether an arbitration clause survives even if the main agreement is alleged to be void.

Issue (i): Whether, in proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the designated Judge could undertake a detailed merits enquiry instead of confining himself to preliminary jurisdictional questions.

Analysis: The referral power under Section 11(6) is limited to examining matters such as the court's jurisdiction, the existence of an arbitration agreement, whether the applicant is a party to such agreement, and whether there is a live claim. A detailed adjudication on disputed facts and merits, akin to deciding a suit without evidence, goes beyond the scope of that power. The designated Judge was therefore required to keep within the limited preliminary enquiry contemplated by the statute and the earlier binding principles governing appointment of arbitrators.

Conclusion: The designated Judge exceeded the permissible scope of jurisdiction under Section 11(6).

Issue (ii): Whether an arbitration clause survives even if the main agreement is alleged to be void.

Analysis: An arbitration clause is treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract. Under Section 16(1)(a) and Section 16(1)(b), a challenge to the validity of the main contract does not, by itself, extinguish the arbitration agreement. Even where the substantive contract is said to be null and void, the arbitration clause may continue to operate and be enforced for resolving disputes concerning the contract.

Conclusion: The arbitration agreement does survive notwithstanding the challenge to the validity of the main agreement.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh in accordance with the limited jurisdiction applicable to appointment of an arbitrator, leaving the dispute to be dealt with on the basis that the arbitration clause is legally independent.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings for appointment of an arbitrator, the court must confine itself to preliminary questions of jurisdiction and the existence of an arbitration agreement, and an arbitration clause remains separable and enforceable even if the main contract is alleged to be void.

---