Arbitrability dispute and effect of consent letter must be decided by the arbitral tribunal at the appointment stage.

In proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Court treated objections based on a consent letter, receipt of payment and alleged staleness of the claim as issues bearing on arbitrability and the effect of disputed facts. It held that such adjudicatory questions fall within the arbitral tribunal's domain and should not be examined at the appointment stage where an arbitration clause exists. The Court therefore rejected the objection to appointment and appointed a sole arbitrator to decide the disputes.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the dispute was non-arbitrable on the ground that the claim had become stale after a consent letter and receipt of payment, and whether an arbitrator should nevertheless be appointed.

Analysis: The Court noted that the objection raised by the respondent went to the arbitrability of the dispute and to the effect of the consent letter and subsequent payment. It found that these questions involved adjudicatory matters falling within the domain of the arbitral tribunal. The Court also relied on its earlier order, which had held that when a claim is disputed and an arbitration clause exists, the arbitrator is competent to decide the claim and the arbitrability issue, and such matters are not to be examined by the Court at the stage of appointment.

Conclusion: The objection to appointment of an arbitrator was rejected, and the petition was allowed by appointing a sole arbitrator to decide the disputes.

---