Must a court examining an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 refer the parties to arbitration unless it is manifestly and ex facie certain the dispute is non-arbitrable?

Paragraph 16Another three-Judge Bench of this Court in Vidya Drolia and Others v. Durga Trading Corporation[^12], harmonised the standard of review under Sections 8 and 11 of the Act and held that a court should decline reference only where it is manifestly and ex facie certain that the arbitration agreement is non-existent, invalid, or that the dispute is non-arbitrable; short of that, the governing maxim is “when in doubt, do refer.” This “eye of the needle” standard has since been applied consistently, in subsequent decisions by this Court in Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. v. Northern Coal Field Ltd.[^13] (holding that limitation, being a mixed question of fact and law bound up with the Tribunal’s Section 16 jurisdiction, is ordinarily for the Arbitral Tribunal) and in In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899[^14] (holding by a seven-Judge Bench, that even insufficiency of stamping is a curable, evidentiary question for the Tribunal, and thus overruling N.N. Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd.)[^15].