JUDGMENT : TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J. 1. The petitioner has filed this arbitration application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) for appointment of an Arbitrator since the respondent has failed to appoint an Arbitrator even after request for the same has been validly made to her as per registered partnership deed. Case of the petitioner 2. It has been averred in the application under Section 11 (6) of the Act that the petitioner is indulged into a business with the respondent with respect to establishment of a diagnostic and pathological lab under the name of ‘Mahabir Diagnostic’. 3. The registered partnership deed was signed on 7 th October 2021 registered at Book No.1657. 4. The rules of the petitioner and the respondent were well defined in the agreement and Clause 22 of the said agreement deals with the dispute resolution, which reads as under:- “22.2. Only the courts of competent jurisdiction of Hazaribagh or Ranchi shall have exclusive jurisdiction in all matters.” 5. There was a dispute between the parties with respect to profit sharing, and losses incurred by the present petitioner due to the misdeeds of the respondent. 6. Several inspections and queries were made with respect to the accounts after which it was found that the petitioner was entitled for compensation from the respondent. Accordingly, a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was sent to the respondent vide notice dated 05.09.2024. 7. The claim amount of the petitioner from the respondent is approximately Rs.3,56,72,678/-. 8. The respondent has acknowledged receipt of the notice under Section 21 of the Act and thereafter has sent reply to the petitioner on 23.09.2024. 9. On the basis of said allegations, the prayer as aforesaid has been made in the arbitration application. Averments in the counter affidavit 10. The sole respondent has contested the claim of the petitioner for appointment of arbitrator by filing a counter affidavit wherein the fact that partnership agreement was entered between the petitioner and the respondent vide Deed dated 07.10.2021 whereby either party agreed to form and constitute a partnership firm under the Partnership Act, 1932 for the purposes mentioned therein has not been denied. However, it has been stated that pursuant to the partnership deed, one resolution dated 20.10.2022 was passed in the Annual General Meeting of the partnership firm wherein it was agreed that Mahavir Medical - a medical shop established for purchase and sale of medicines, etc., shall now be sister concern of the Mahavir Diagnostic. 11. It has further been acknowledged that certain disputes had arisen between the parties with respect to finance of the firm and consequently, one person named Mr. Ehtesam Ahmed was appointed on full time basis by the petitioner to look after the regular accounting and financial operations of both the entities. 12. However, despite Mr. Ahmed being appointed to oversee accounting of the firms and that all control over the finances and filing of audited returns were done by the petitioner himself, grave accusations of fraud and of swindling of business money for personal use were levelled by the petitioner way back in the year 2024 itself. Consequently, besides Mr. Ahmed, another person by the name Mr. Avinash Kumar Singh was also appointed by the petitioner on his behalf to conduct a sham stock audit of both the business entities for the petitioner to confirm any chance of swindling of firm’s resources by the respondent. 13. The respondent, although aghast with the sudden grave and baseless accusations made devoid of any merit, but to mitigate any chance of conflict and distrust between the partners, chose to not object to such appointment and stock audits. 14. Despite the aforesaid, the petitioner continued harassing the respondent with the aforesaid allegations and started demanding huge sum of cash from the respondent by accusing that the same has been taken away by the respondent without any basis or justifiable cause by relying on some financial reports and stock audit. 15. It has further been averred that the respondent had no access to any documents and moreover, the Audited Financial Report of the financial year 2022-23 of the partnership firm was prepared and signed by the petitioner himself through his Chartered Accountant and the respondent had no role to play. 16. 15. It has further been averred that the respondent had no access to any documents and moreover, the Audited Financial Report of the financial year 2022-23 of the partnership firm was prepared and signed by the petitioner himself through his Chartered Accountant and the respondent had no role to play. 16. Being fed up with the continued trauma of being accused and harassed for criminal misappropriation, breach of trust and with fraud, the respondent being herself in her late fifties and has much to think of her old age, decided to get ward off of the partnership and accordingly, considering there were major disputes arising between the parties which had started affecting daily operations of the businesses, it was decided between the partners that the said partnership deed should be dissolved. Consequently, the petitioner purchased one Stamp Paper bearing Receipt No. 834c7901def1c7ddb5e2 dated 05.08.2024 for the purpose of ‘dissolution of partnership firm’ which is evident from the ‘Purpose’ column of stamp duty paid and copy of the Stamp Paper Receipt has been annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. 17. It has further been averred that even though there was no agreement between the parties with respect to the said dissolution, however, it was orally and consensually agreed that the partnership between the parties stands dissolved on 5 th August 2024. 18. It is further averred that with the said understanding, respondent being aware of the fact that since no written agreement has been signed between the parties and that later respondent must not be made liable to any irregularity committed by the petitioner in the firm, filed an Informatory Petition bearing No.122 of 2024 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh thereby bringing the dissolution of partnership firm and division of consequent liabilities between the parties to the cognizance of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 19. It is further averred that bare reading of both the documents being Stamp Paper as well as the Informatory Petition would go to show that the partnership firm stood dissolved as on 05.08.2024 consequent to the purchase of Stamp Paper and subsequent conduct of the parties. 20. 19. It is further averred that bare reading of both the documents being Stamp Paper as well as the Informatory Petition would go to show that the partnership firm stood dissolved as on 05.08.2024 consequent to the purchase of Stamp Paper and subsequent conduct of the parties. 20. It has further been averred that one letter dated 18.10.2024 was written by the petitioner himself to the HDFC Bank where bank account of the partnership firm was being maintained, wherein he acknowledged dissolution of the partnership firm and requested to be sole authority to operate the bank account of the Firm. Being cognizant of such letter sent by the petitioner to the Bank with respect to the bank account of the partnership firm, the respondent too approached the Bank through a representation wherein she sought for removal of her name from the bank account of Mahavir Diagnostics and consequently requested that the petitioner himself be named as sole proprietor, who has accepted and also declared himself to be the sole proprietor of the firm, Mahavir Diagnostics and Mahavir Medical, as is evident from the Annexure-E. 21. Lastly, it has been averred that the bank statement of the partnership firm being M/s. Mahavir Diagnostics would go to show that up till 27.04.2024, all payments of the Firm were done through the joint account of the Firm, however, from 04.11.2024 the bank account was managed and operated by the petitioner himself and all transactions and receipts were made only in the name of ‘Mahavir Medical’. 22. In sum and substance, the contention of the respondent is that the partnership agreement dated 07.09.2021, upon which the petitioner has relied upon and had sent notice under Section 21 and thereafter filed the instant petition under Section 11 (6) of the Act, has already been rescinded, meaning thereby that as on the date of filing of the application, the partnership deed itself is non-existent and, therefore, the application itself is not maintainable. Findings of the Court 23. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the materials available on records. 24. There is no dispute between the parties that there was a partnership between the parties and the parties had entered into a partnership agreement dated 07.09.2021 but the respondent would contend that the partnership stands dissolved and, therefore, the matter cannot be referred to arbitration. 25. 24. There is no dispute between the parties that there was a partnership between the parties and the parties had entered into a partnership agreement dated 07.09.2021 but the respondent would contend that the partnership stands dissolved and, therefore, the matter cannot be referred to arbitration. 25. However, the scope under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , has limited scope of jurisdiction at the referral stage and cannot adjudicate on merits by undertaking a detailed examination of factual matrix. The scope of inquiry under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 is limited to ascertaining prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. 26. As has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh Versus ASAP Fluids Private Limited and Another , (2025) 1 SCC 502 ; GOQII Technologies Private Limited Versus Sokrati Technologies Private Limited , (2025) 2 SCC 192 ; The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Limited & Anr Versus Sanjay Kumar, Civil Appeal No.10116 of 2025 arising out of SLP(C) No.10455 of 2020 ; Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899, In Re , (2024) 6 SCC 1 . 27. Thus, what can be taken to be settled law from the various judgments referred to above is that while deciding such an application under Section 11 (6), the High Court undertakes a limited examination. The Court’s jurisdiction is confined to a prima facie examination, without conducting a mini-trial or laborious and contested inquiry, into the existence of an arbitration agreement, i.e., whether there exists a contract to refer disputes that have arisen between the parties to arbitration. Further, any examination into the validity of the arbitration agreement must be restricted to the requirement of “formal validity”. Beyond this, the court must leave it to the arbitral tribunal to “rule” on and adjudicate the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, in accordance with the principle under Section 16 of the Act. Conclusion 28. Beyond this, the court must leave it to the arbitral tribunal to “rule” on and adjudicate the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, in accordance with the principle under Section 16 of the Act. Conclusion 28. Since there is an agreement dated 07.09.2021 between the petitioner and the respondent which contains an arbitration clause, i.e., Clause 22.2 as extracted above, I, therefore, appoint Justice Dilip Kumar Sinha, a retired Judge of High Court of Jharkhand, presently residing at D/401, Green Residency, Nalanda Colony, Budha Vihar, Tetar Toli, Bariatu, Ranchi, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties. 29. All contentions available to the parties are left open. 30. Learned Arbitrator would be free to lay down the fees and other expenses towards conduct of the arbitration proceedings, however, while doing so he shall take into account the ceiling prescribed under Schedule IV of the Act of 1996 as amended. 31. Learned Arbitrator would endeavor to conclude the proceedings expeditiously by taking into regard the mandate of the Legislature under Section 29-A of the Act of 1996. 32. Accordingly, this application is allowed.