As per case facts, M/s Tata Projects Ltd (Applicant) was contracted by Chhattisgarh Infotech Promotion Society (Respondent No. 1) for the Bharat-Net Project, involving network installation across the state, with ... Union of India (Respondent No. 3) funding. Due to alleged delays and non-payments from Respondent No. 1, the Applicant terminated the Master Services Agreement and sought arbitration. As Respondents failed to appoint an arbitrator, the Applicant approached the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The question arose whether preliminary objections—such as lack of Applicant's authority, the contract being a 'works contract' under the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, and fraud allegations—preclude arbitration, or if these are matters for the Arbitral Tribunal. Finally, the High Court, applying principles laid down by the Supreme Court, ruled that its inquiry under Section 11 is limited to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. It held that other disputed factual questions, including the contract type and fraud allegations, are matters for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide. Consequently, the High Court appointed an independent Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute, with all parties retaining the liberty to present their full grounds before the Arbitrator.