Mr. Deepanshu Goga, Adv v. M/S ANT CREATIVES OPC PRIVATE LIMITED

Through: Mr. Deepanshu Goga, Adv. .....Petitioner versus M/S ANT CREATIVES OPC PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. 2. Despite service, no one has appeared for the respondent. The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioner and the respondent have entered into a co-working agreement dated 23.03.2023. 3. The respondent, under the said co-working agreement, was to make payment of monthly membership fees in order to avail the services of the co- working centre of the petitioner. As per the case set up by the petitioner, the respondent defaulted in the payment of monthly membership fees and thereafter, unilaterally terminated its membership. 4. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause while issuing notice under Section 21 on 08.10.2024. Clause 4 (a) of the agreement provides for Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:23.08.2025 17:30:52 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV arbitration, and the same is extracted as under: “4. ESCALATION IN MEMBERSHIP FEES a. The Parties agree that the Total Membership Fees payable by the Member Entity to 91sprlngboard may be increased annually, at the sole discretion of 91 springboard and shall be communicated to the Member Entity in writing, provided however that, (i) any uniform increase in the Membership Fees shall not be applicable to a Member Entity in its first six months of the Membership Plan. Accordingly, in case there is an increase in the Membership Fees in the initial six months of the Membership Plan, then such increased pricing shall be applicable to the Member Entity only with effect from the seventh month. However, six months price freeze window shall NOT be available in the scenario wherein expected uniform Membership Fee revision [Revised Membership Fee] is already announced by 91springboard and duly communicated to the Member Entity on the date of joining itself e.g. A Member Entity joins 91springboard during the month of December and on the date of joining a Revised Membership Fee plan effective 1st January in the month following, is already announced and communicated to the Member Entity, in that case, the Member Entity will be charged at existing rates of membership fee for the month of December and as per Revised Membership Fee plan effective 1st January in the following month. On the contrary, if there is a uniform decrease in the Membership Fees in the initial six months of the Membership Plan, then such decreased pricing shall be applicable to the Member Entity immediately, notwithstanding that the initial six months have not expired. ~Q any escalation in case of teams which have locked-in shall happen only after the period of lock-in is over, unless mutually decided by 91 springboard and respective member entity”

5. The law with respect to the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act has been fairly well settled. This Court as well in the order dated 24.04.2025 in case of ARB.P. 145/2025 titled as Pradhaan Air Express Pvt Ltd v. Air Works India Engineering Pvt Ltd has extensively dealt with the scope of interference at the stage of Section 11. The Court held as under:- “9. The law with respect to the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act has been fairly well settled. The Supreme Court in the case of SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:23.08.2025 17:30:52 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV Spinning1, while considering all earlier pronouncements including the Constitutional Bench decision of seven judges in the case of Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 & the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, In re 2 has held that scope of inquiry at the stage of appointment of an Arbitrator is limited to the extent of prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement and nothing else.

10. It has unequivocally been held in paragraph no.114 in the case of SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd that observations made in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn.3, and adopted in NTPC Ltd. v. SPML Infra Ltd.,4 that the jurisdiction of the referral court when dealing with the issue of “accord and satisfaction” under Section 11 extends to weeding out ex-facie non-arbitrable and frivolous disputes would not apply after the decision of Re: Interplay. The abovenoted paragraph no.114 in the case of SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd reads as under:- facie existence of “114. In view of the observations made by this Court in In Re: Interplay (supra), it is clear that the scope of enquiry at the stage of appointment of arbitrator is limited to the the arbitration scrutiny of prima agreement, and nothing else. For this reason, we find it difficult to hold that the observations made in Vidya Drolia (supra) and adopted in NTPC v. SPML (supra) that the jurisdiction of the referral court when dealing with the issue of “accord and satisfaction” under Section 11 extends to weeding out ex-facie non-arbitrable and frivolous disputes would continue to apply despite the subsequent decision in In Re: Interplay (supra).”

11. Ex-facie frivolity and dishonesty are the issues, which have been held to be within the scope of the Arbitral Tribunal which is equally capable of deciding upon the appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. While considering the aforesaid pronouncements of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court in the case of Goqii Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Sokrati Technologies (P) Ltd.5, however, has held that the referral Courts under Section 11 must not be misused by one party in order to force other parties to the arbitration agreement to participate in a time- consuming and costly arbitration process. Few instances have been delineated such as, the adjudication of a non-existent and malafide claim through arbitration. The Court, however, in order to balance the limited