Manipur High Court
Stumm Water Technologists Private … vs Union Of India & Anr on 13 March, 2026
Abuja Digitally
signed by
m Abujam
Surjit Singh
Item No. 2
Surjit Date:
2026.03.15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Singh 15:21:57
+05'30'
MC(Arb.P.) No. 1 of 2026
Stumm Water Technologists Private Limited
Applicant/s
Vrs.
Union of India & Anr.
Respondent/s
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
(ORDER)
13.03.2026
At the outset, it is made clear that this is a consent order. To be noted,
Arbitral Tribunal is a creature of contract.
2. Mr. A. Golly, learned counsel for applicant in captioned
‘Miscellaneous Case’ (‘M.C.’ for the sake of brevity) is before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that in and vide order
dated 03.10.2025 this Court disposed of M
C applicant’s Arbitration petition being Arb. P. No.1 of 2023 being a
petition under Section 11 of the ‘Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(26 of
1996)’ [hereinafter ‘A and C Act‘ for the sake of brevity, convenience and
clarity].
4. Afore-referred 03.10.2025 order reads as follows:
‘03.10.2025
[1] Mr. S.M. Farish, learned counsel for sole
petitioner and Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned senior counsel and Deputy
Solicitor General of India instructed by Mr. Paikhomba, learned
counsel for both the respondents are before this Court.
1
[2] Captioned petition is one under Section 11 of the
‘Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996‘ (‘A and C Act‘ for the sake of
convenience and clarity).
[3] Nucleus of the matter is an agreement bearing
reference No. 10/EE/MCD-I/2014-15. As regards the date of the
agreement, there is no disputation that the agreement was signed
within 15 (fifteen) days from 20.08.2014 and the work commenced
sometime in October, 2014.
[4] As regards the aforesaid agreement, the same is for
construction of MP Hall for SAI at Takyel, Imphal. SH: Providing,
installing, testing and commissioning of water treatment plant with
pressure filter and activated carbon filter at SAI, Imphal.
[5] Be that as it may, point of utmost importance is both
sides agree that the general conditions of contract (GCC), Central
Public Works Department (CPWD) forms part of the contract and there
is an arbitration clause which governs the parties. This means that
the existence of arbitration of agreement is not disputed. To put it
differently, existence of arbitration agreement within the meaning of
sub Section (6-A) of Section 11 of A and C Act is not disputed.
[6] The simple prayer of the petitioner contractor is for
appointment of an arbitrator preferably from the CPWD panel to
adjudicate upon disputes and differences that have arisen between
the parties. To be noted, while the contractor contends that the work
has been executed in accordance with the contract within the time
frame, respondents State contend to the contrary and submit that the
work has not been handed over to CPWD office until this day, no
treated water has been received and no information about
commissioning of the plant has been given to the State.
[7] Considering the legal perimeter within which a Section
11 application has to perambulate, this Section 11 Court deems
appropriate to not to dilate more on the nature of the disputes.
Though obvious, it is made clear that no opinion or view is expressed
either on the merits or on the contention of either sides on the
dispute. This is in the light of sub-section 6A of Section 11 of A and C
Act.
[8] Hon’ble Supreme Court in Duro Felguera, S.A. v.
Gangavaram Port Ltd., (2017) 9 SCC 729 ] and Mayavati Trading (P)
Ltd. v. Pradyuat Deb Burman, (2019) 8 SCC 714 made it clear that in
the light of sub-section 6A of Section 11 of A and C Act, all that a
Section 11 court need to examine is the existence of an arbitration
agreement. In the case on hand, there is no disputation or
contestation about the existence of the arbitration agreement.
2
[9] The contractor has also fairly made a prayer to
appoint an arbitrator from the CPWD panel.
[10] Learned Deputy Solicitor General fairly
submitted that he has no preferences and it is left to the Court. As
regards the contractor petitioner, contractor petitioner chose 5 (five)
from the panel notified by CPWD vide reference No.02/SE
(TLC)/Empanelment-Arb./2021-22/66 dated 13.04.2023 and submitted
that appointment of anyone of them as sole arbitrator is acceptable.
One of the five is Sansar Pattanayak, residence of Flat No. 101, Alfa
Chrome, GA-39, Sailashree Vihar, Bhubaneswar-751021, Mobile No.
7504213002 and E-mail ID : [email protected].
[11] In the light of the narrative thus far, Shri Sansar
Pattanayak is appointed as sole arbitrator to enter upon the arbitrable
disputes that has arisen between the parties qua aforesaid contract
to adjudicate upon the same and render an award. Though obvious,
it is made clear that the fees of sole arbitrator will stand governed by
Schedule IV of A and C Act.
[12] Captioned Section 11 petition disposed of in the
aforesaid manner. There shall no order as to costs’.
5. Afore-referred order speaks for itself. Be that as it may, the
learned counsel for MC applicant draws the attention of this Court to a
communication dated 26.12.2025 from Arbitrator appointed vide aforesaid
03.10.2025 (Mr. Sansar Pattanyak). Adverting to this communication, learned
counsel submits that the arbitrator after entering upon reference, has written
that he is unable to continue as Arbitrator owing to personal reasons. A
scanned reproduction of this 26.12.2025 letter addressed to both parties to
Arbitration i.e., M.C applicant as well as State (respondents) is as follows:
3
6. Afore-referred communication from arbitrator has necessitated
the captioned MC is learned counsel’s say.
7. Issue notice to respondents.
8. Mr. N. Nongdamba, learned counsel accepts notice for both
respondents and Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned senior counsel and Deputy
Solicitor General of India, High Court of Manipur (DSGI) appeared on his
behalf.
9. This Court, with the consent of learned counsel for MC
applicant, learned State counsel for respondents and learned DSGI took up
and heard out the captioned MC.
10. Both sides submitted in unison in one voice that there is a panel
of 62(sixty two) Arbitrators which is now operating and anyone from this
4
panel can be appointed as an Arbitrator. Both sides also fairly consented forappointment of Sl. No.13 in the panel i.e., Mr. Sudhir Kumar as arbitrator in
place of Mr. Sansar Pattanayak. Therefore, by consent of both sides, afore-
referred 03.10.2025 order is now modified as follows:
(1). Paragraph 10 of aforereferred 03.10.2025 order shall now be
substituted by the following paragraph :
Both sides agreed that anyone from 62(sixty two) member
penal now in vogue can be appointed as sole Arbitrator, both sides
also agreed for appointment of Sl. No.13 in the panel namely Mr.
Sudhir Kumar, address: X-14, HIG, Ashiana Nagar, Phase-1 Patna-
800025, Mobile No. 9199427074 and E-mail ID :
[email protected].
(2). As regard paragraph No.11 of 03.10.2025 order, the name Shri
Sansar Pattanayak will now stand substituted by Mr. Sudhir Kumar and in
all other aspects, earlier order 03.10.2025 made in Arb. P. No.1 of 2023 will
remain the same.
11. Captioned MC is allowed/disposed of in the aforesaid manner.
There shall be no order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Ab. Surjit
5
