Prima facie Section 11 scrutiny permits arbitration despite disputed stamping where the agreement is not clearly unenforceable.

At the Section 11 stage, the court's inquiry is limited to a prima facie view on the existence of an arbitration agreement, and disputed questions about the underlying contract, including stamping, are ordinarily left to the arbitral tribunal unless the objection shows clear deadwood. Where stamp duty had been paid but its sufficiency remained disputed, that issue was not enough to make the arbitration agreement unworkable at the threshold. The stamping objection therefore did not bar reference of the dispute to arbitration, and appointment of a sole arbitrator was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be allowed and an arbitrator appointed when the respondent objected that the underlying contract was insufficiently stamped.

Analysis: The scope of inquiry at the pre-appointment stage is limited to a prima facie view on the existence of the arbitration agreement. Questions touching the validity of the underlying contract, including stamping disputes, are ordinarily for the arbitral tribunal unless the objection discloses clear deadwood. Here, the record showed that stamp duty had in fact been paid, though the correctness or sufficiency of the payment was disputed. That dispute was not so clear-cut as to render the arbitration agreement unworkable at the threshold. The issue of improper or insufficient stamping, and any consequential objections to enforceability, could be examined later.

Conclusion: The stamping objection did not bar reference of the dispute to arbitration, and appointment of a sole arbitrator was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: At the Section 11 stage, a court should adopt only a prima facie approach and refer the dispute to arbitration unless the objection clearly shows that the arbitration agreement is non-existent or falls within a narrow deadwood exception; disputed stamping issues, where stamp duty has been paid and sufficiency remains contestable, are not by themselves sufficient to refuse appointment of an arbitrator.

---