The High Court of Delhi has appointed a Sole Arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from an Influencer Agreement, while clarifying that judicial intervention under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, must be confined to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement.
Presiding over the case of Abhinav Shukla v. M/S Great Rocksport Pvt. Ltd., Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar emphasized that the court’s role is facilitative and procedural, intended to give effect to the parties’ mutual intention to arbitrate without delving into the merits of the controversy.
Background
The Petitioner, Abhinav Shukla, filed the petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator. The dispute originated from an “Influencer Agreement” dated January 22, 2023.
The agreement contained a ‘Dispute Resolution’ clause which mandated that any disputes regarding the “construction or interpretation of any of the terms” or “determination of any liability or breach thereof” would be settled through arbitration in New Delhi, conducted in the English language. Following the emergence of disputes, the Petitioner issued a notice under Section 21 of the Act on August 25, 2025. The valuation of the dispute is approximately ₹20,00,000/-.
Arguments of the Parties
Advocate Abhishek Mohan Goel, appearing for the Petitioner, informed the Court that the Respondent had already expressed no objection to the appointment of an arbitrator during proceedings before the Joint Registrar on March 16, 2026.
Advocate Rajat Nagar, representing the Respondent, reiterated the company’s consent to refer the matter to arbitration. Consequently, both parties were in agreement (ad idem) regarding the referral.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Shankar noted that the scope of judicial scrutiny at this stage is no longer res integra (an untouched matter). The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s three-judge bench decision in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024), which clarified the boundaries of judicial intervention following the seven-judge bench ruling in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re (2024).
Quoting the Krish Spinning judgment, the Court observed:
“The scope of enquiry at the stage of appointment of arbitrator is limited to the scrutiny of prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement, and nothing else.”
The Court further noted that traditional tests such as the “eye of the needle” or “ex facie meritless” are no longer in strict conformity with modern arbitration principles, which prioritize arbitral autonomy. The judgment highlighted:
“The negative effect of competence-competence would require that the matter falling within the exclusive domain of the Arbitral Tribunal, should not be looked into by the Referral Court, even for a prima facie determination, before the Arbitral Tribunal first has had the opportunity of looking into it.”
The Court explained that the Arbitral Tribunal is better positioned to decide on issues like “accord and satisfaction” or “frivolity and dishonesty in litigation” because it has the benefit of extensive pleadings and evidentiary material.
Decision
Finding the arbitration agreement valid and noting the consent of both parties, the High Court appointed Ms. Vijayata M. Bhalla, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator.
The Court issued the following directions:
- The Arbitrator shall furnish disclosures as required under Section 12(2) of the Act.
- The Arbitrator’s fee will be in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Act, unless otherwise agreed.
- Fees and arbitral costs shall be shared equally by the parties.
- All rights and contentions regarding claims and counter-claims are kept open for adjudication by the Arbitrator.
The Court concluded by stating that nothing in the order should be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Abhinav Shukla v. M/S Great Rocksport Pvt. Ltd.
- Case Number: ARB.P. 2117/2025
- Bench: Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
- Date of Decision: March 19, 2026
