Section 11 Scope Narrowed to ‘Existence’ of Arbitration Clause: P&H High Court Appoints Arbitrator Despite Misjoinder & Pre-Arbitral Objections
Case Name: M/s Okhae Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Geumo Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 16 February 2026
Citation: ARB-328-2025
Bench: Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that at the stage of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court is only required to examine the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. Objections relating to misjoinder of parties or non-compliance with pre-arbitral procedures cannot defeat appointment of an arbitrator and are matters to be considered by the arbitral tribunal.
Summary: The applicant sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, arising out of a work order dated 02.09.2024 containing an arbitration clause. The arbitration clause had been invoked through notice under Section 21, but the respondents failed to agree on appointment of an arbitrator.
The respondents raised two primary objections. First, they contended that the petition suffered from misjoinder of parties, as certain respondents were non-signatories to the contract. Second, it was argued that the applicant had failed to follow the pre-arbitral requirement of amicable settlement before invoking arbitration.
The Court rejected the objection of misjoinder, holding that such issues do not warrant dismissal of a Section 11 petition. It relied on settled law that even non-signatories may be impleaded during arbitral proceedings, and the arbitral tribunal is competent to decide such jurisdictional issues.
On the issue of pre-arbitral procedures, the Court reiterated that the scope of enquiry under Section 11(6-A) is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. It emphasized that questions regarding compliance with pre-arbitral steps are not to be adjudicated at this stage and are left to the arbitral tribunal under the doctrine of competence-competence.
The Court further observed that pre-arbitral conditions such as amicable settlement are directory in nature and do not bar invocation of arbitration.
Since the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and its invocation were undisputed, the Court held that the statutory requirements for appointment of an arbitrator stood satisfied.
Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.