Prima facie review in arbitral appointments leaves disputed agreement validity for the tribunal, not a conclusive court finding.

At the Section 11 stage, the court's role is confined to a prima facie scrutiny of the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement, not a conclusive determination. Where the material is disputed or inconclusive, the threshold question of whether a valid arbitration agreement exists should ordinarily be left to the arbitral tribunal. On the facts, the documentary record did not conclusively establish a concluded arbitration agreement, but it was sufficient to justify reference to arbitration. The prior final finding on existence was set aside, while the appointment of the arbitrator was maintained so the tribunal could decide that jurisdictional issue first.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in proceedings for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court may conclusively determine the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement or must apply only a prima facie test. (ii) Whether, on the facts, a concluded arbitration agreement existed between the parties so as to sustain the appointment of an arbitrator.

Issue (i): Whether, in proceedings for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court may conclusively determine the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement or must apply only a prima facie test.

Analysis: The referral court's jurisdiction under Section 11 is confined and must be exercised summarily. The expression "existence of an arbitration agreement" includes the element of validity, but the court is required to undertake only a prima facie scrutiny, especially where facts are contested or the material is inconclusive. The arbitral tribunal remains the primary forum to decide disputed issues, including jurisdictional objections and non-arbitrability, except in clear cases where no valid arbitration agreement exists.

Conclusion: The Court held that Section 11 review is limited to a prima facie examination and that disputed questions on the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement ordinarily must be left to the arbitrator.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts, a concluded arbitration agreement existed between the parties so as to sustain the appointment of an arbitrator.

Analysis: The documentary material was found to be inconclusive. The forensic report did not affirm authorship of the disputed signatures, the surrounding circumstances cast doubt on the alleged executed agreement, and the post-dated correspondence did not reliably establish a concluded contract. At the same time, the record disclosed enough material to justify leaving the disputed question for determination in arbitration rather than finally negating the reference. The High Court's conclusive finding that an arbitration agreement existed was therefore set aside, but the appointment of the arbitrator was maintained so that the arbitrator could first decide, as a preliminary issue, whether such an agreement existed.

Conclusion: The Court held that the existence of the arbitration agreement could not be conclusively found on the present record, but the arbitral reference and appointment were sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of by correcting the High Court's final finding on the existence of the arbitration agreement while preserving the arbitral forum to decide that threshold question first, followed by the merits only if jurisdiction is established.

Ratio Decidendi: At the Section 11 stage, the court applies a limited prima facie review that extends to the validity of the arbitration agreement, but when the material is disputed or inconclusive, the threshold question of existence should ordinarily be left to the arbitral tribunal.

---