The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, after finding no dispute over the existence of an arbitration agreement between Sunstone Education Technology Pvt. Ltd. (now Elevate Education Technology Pvt. Ltd.) and Vestor College. The claim amounted to Rs.85,35,069/- and the respondent only objected to the petitioner’s name change.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sunstone Education Technology Pvt. Ltd. (now known as Elevate Education Technology Pvt. Ltd.), filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate a dispute arising out of a claim of Rs.85,35,069/-. The respondent, Vestor College, did not dispute the existence of an arbitration agreement but contended that the petitioner’s name had changed and sought clarification on the same.
Key Facts
- The claim amount is Rs.85,35,069/-.
- The parties had an arbitration agreement in place.
- The petitioner company underwent a name change from Sunstone Education Technology Pvt. Ltd. to Elevate Education Technology Pvt. Ltd.
- The respondent’s counsel conceded the arbitration clause but raised no objection to the appointment of an arbitrator.
- The application was filed as ARB.P. 1179/2026 with an interlocutory application I.A. 18672/2026.
Procedural History
- 29.09.2026: The judgment was pronounced, appointing Mr. Manish Verma as sole arbitrator.
- The application ARB.P. 1179/2026 was heard on the said date.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought the appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to resolve the dispute concerning the claim of Rs.85,35,069/-.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether, under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court may appoint a sole arbitrator when the parties concede the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and the only contention pertains to the petitioner’s change of name, without any dispute over the arbitration clause itself.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and the claim amount of Rs.85,35,069/- to request the appointment of a sole arbitrator. It argued that the mere change in its corporate name did not affect the arbitration agreement and that the respondent had not disputed the clause.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel stated that they did not dispute the arbitration agreement or the claim, but only pointed out the name change of the petitioner. They had no objection to the appointment of an arbitrator and left the matter to the court’s discretion.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by reiterating the well-settled principle that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the scope of enquiry is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. > "It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , the scope of enquiry is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement1."
The Court noted that there was no dispute regarding the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. The respondent’s counsel had not contested the arbitration clause; the only issue raised was the petitioner’s change of name. Accordingly, the Court found no impediment in appointing a sole arbitrator.
"Accordingly, Mr. Manish Verma, Advocate (Mob . No. 9811304202 ) is appointed as a learned Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arisen between the parties. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference within three weeks from today."
The Court further directed that the arbitrator shall proceed with the arbitration subject to furnishing the requisite disclosures required under Section 12(2) of the Act. The arbitration shall be conducted under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), and the arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the DIAC schedule. It clarified that the observations made in the order are solely for the purpose of deciding the present petition under Section 11(6) and that the arbitrator shall adjudicate the claims and counter-claims independently, uninfluenced by any observations contained in the order. Finally, the Registry was directed to send a receipt of the order to the appointed arbitrator through all permissible modes.
The Verdict
The Court appointed Mr. Manish Verma, Advocate, as the sole arbitrator. He shall enter upon the reference within three weeks from the date of the order and proceed subject to furnishing requisite disclosures under Section 12(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitration shall be conducted under the rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The claim amount is Rs.85,35,069/-. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Scope of Section 11 Limited to Prima Facie Inquiry
The Court’s analysis confirms that under Section 11, the judiciary’s role is restricted to a prima facie check for the existence of an arbitration agreement. Merits, jurisdictional objections, and the validity of the underlying contract are left to the arbitrator. Practitioners should therefore limit their arguments to the existence of the arbitration clause when seeking appointment under this provision.
Name Change Does Not Affect Arbitration Agreement
A mere alteration in the name of a party, without any amendment to the arbitration clause, does not impair the enforceability of the arbitration agreement. The Court’s acceptance of the respondent’s concession on the arbitration clause, despite the name change, underscores that corporate re-branding does not disturb the parties’ consent to arbitrate.
Procedural Timelines for Arbitrator Appointment
The appointed arbitrator must commence proceedings within three weeks of the order and comply with the disclosure requirements under Section 12(2). This timeline ensures that the arbitration process begins promptly while safeguarding transparency through mandatory disclosures.
- Limit arguments to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement when filing under Section 11.
- A name change of a party is not a ground to resist arbitrator appointment.
- Ensure the arbitrator furnishes disclosures under Section 12(2) before proceeding.
- The arbitration will be governed by the rules of the chosen institutional centre, here DIAC.
