This directive aligns with precedents set by Duro Felguera S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Ltd. (2016) 9 SCC 727 and Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation (2021) 2 SCC 1 which similarly highlighted that detailed examination of contractual disputes or enforceability is best left to arbitrators. The Court explicitly chose not to rule on whether Lifeforce was indeed the successor in interest, leaving this matter to be resolved in the arbitration proceedings. Given that the arbitration agreement's existence was undisputed within the licensing and shareholders' agreements, the Court directed the matter to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre to appoint a sole arbitrator. It clarified that this procedural move does not imply any view on the merits of the case, leaving all substantive issues open for adjudication by the arbitrator. This ruling reinforces the Indian judiciary's pro-arbitration stance, limiting its role in Section 11(6) applications to avoid interference in arbitral jurisdiction.