Arbitration appointment scrutiny limited to existence of an arbitration agreement; preliminary objections stay for the arbitral tribunal.

Under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Court's role at the appointment stage is confined to a prima facie examination of whether an arbitration agreement exists. The 2015 amendment was understood as limiting pre-arbitral judicial interference and leaving preliminary objections such as accord and satisfaction, stale claims, and similar disputes to the arbitral tribunal. The contrary view in United India Insurance Company Limited was held to be incorrect and was overruled. The appeal was dismissed, and the law was clarified in favour of narrow scrutiny under Section 11(6A).

---

---

Issues: Whether, under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court is confined to examining only the existence of an arbitration agreement and cannot go into preliminary issues such as accord and satisfaction; and whether the earlier view permitting such wider inquiry continues to hold the field.

Analysis: The statutory text of Section 11(6A) restricted the Court, while dealing with an application under Section 11(4), 11(5) or 11(6), to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement. The legislative history and the materials referred to by the Court showed that the 2015 amendment was intended to curtail pre-arbitral judicial interference and to leave other preliminary disputes to the arbitral tribunal. On that basis, the earlier approach allowing examination of issues such as stale claims or accord and satisfaction at the Section 11 stage was treated as having been superseded by the amendment. The Court also held that the contrary view expressed in United India Insurance Company Limited was not correct in law.

Conclusion: The Court held that, under Section 11(6A), the inquiry is limited to the existence of an arbitration agreement and does not extend to adjudication of accord and satisfaction or similar preliminary objections; the contrary precedent was overruled.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the law on Section 11(6A) was clarified in favour of a narrow, agreement-existence-only scrutiny at the appointment stage.

Ratio Decidendi: After the 2015 amendment, Section 11(6A) confines the Court at the appointment stage to a prima facie examination of whether an arbitration agreement exists, leaving other preliminary disputes to the arbitral tribunal.

---