As per the case facts, appeals were filed challenging a Delhi High Court order that appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996, stemming from ... a dispute related to a Letter of Intent. The High Court appointed the arbitrator despite a clause in the agreement explicitly stating that disputes should be resolved exclusively through civil courts in Delhi. The appeal to the Supreme Court aimed to overturn this appointment. The question arose whether the High Court erred in appointing an arbitrator when the agreement clearly stipulated that dispute resolution would be solely through civil courts. Finally, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashing the High Court's orders. The Court clarified that this was a case of 'reference' rather than 'incorporation', meaning a general reference to contract terms does not automatically include an arbitration clause, especially when a specific clause designates civil courts as the sole forum for disputes. Therefore, the High Court’s appointment of an arbitrator was incorrect.