1 | P a g e Sl. No. 18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL Arb. P. No. 1 of 2023 Stumm Water Technologists Private Limited Petitioner Vs. Union of India and another Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR ORDER 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. [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. SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA Date: 2025.10.06 19:12:48 +05'30' 2 | P a g e [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 3 | P a g e 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. [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 : sansar_pat@yahoo.com. [11] In the light of the narrative thus far, Shri Sansar Pattanayak is appointed as sole arbitrator to enter upon the arbitrable 4 | P a g e 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. CHIEF JUSTICE Sushil