In SBP & Co. v. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD (2005) 8 SCC 618, the Supreme Court held that the JUDICIAL ROLE under Section 11(6) (before 2015 amendment) was:

1. In SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 618, a SEVEN-JUDGE Bench of the Supreme Court held that the role of the Chief Justice (or designate) under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 was JUDICIAL (not merely administrative). 2. The court had to determine: 3. (i) Existence of an arbitration agreement; 4. (ii) Validity of the arbitration agreement; 5. (iii) Entitlement of the applicant to invoke arbitration; 6. (iv) Whether the claim is within the arbitration agreement; 7. (v) Whether the conditions of the arbitration agreement (notice, etc.) are met. 8. CONSEQUENCES: extensive judicial inquiry at appointment stage, delaying arbitration. 9. The 2015 Amendment INSERTED Section 11(6A) — limiting court examination to the EXISTENCE of an arbitration agreement only. 10. CONFIRMED in VIDYA DROLIA v. DURGA TRADING CORP., (2021) 2 SCC 1 — court's review at Section 11 stage is prima facie only on existence. 11. Hence option B is correct. _Source: Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (Bare Act) + Mediation Act 2023 — SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd, (2005) 8 SCC 618 (overruled by 2015 Amendment)_