[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Manipur High Court
M/S Sanmati Traders vs State Of Maharashtra And Others ... on 11 December, 2025
LAIREN Digitally
signed by
MAYUM LAIRENMAYU
M INDRAJEET Item No. 7
INDRAJ SINGH IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Date:
EET 2025.12.12 AT IMPHAL
19:13:16
SINGH +05'30'
Arb.P.(J2) No. 3 of 2024
M/S Sanmati Traders
Petitioner/s
Vrs.
State of Manipur & anr.
Respondent/s
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
(ORDER)
11.12.2025
[1] In captioned arbitration petition, in the hearing today, Mr. Albert
Keisham, learned counsel on record for the sole petitioner is before this Court
(Physical Court). As regards the two respondents (collectively 'State' for the sake of
convenience and clarity), Mr. M. Rarry, learned senior advocate instructed by
learned State counsel on record Ms. M. Nikita, is before this Court on the Video
Conferencing (V.C.) platform.
[2] Captioned arbitration petition was taken up and heard out.
[3] This order shall now be read in conjunction with and in continuation
of earlier proceedings made in the listing on 10.11.2025 which reads as follows:
'10.11.2025
Captioned arbitration petition has been filed under Section
11 of 'the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996)' (hereinafter
'A&C Act' for the sake of brevity & convenience).
Today Mr. H. Kenajit, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms.
M. Nikita, learned counsel for the two respondents (collectively 'State' for
convenience) are before this Court.
Page 1
From the case file and from the facts supplied by both sides,
it comes to light that the captioned matter has a chequered history. This
court notices that from the case file and facts supplied by learned counsel
on both sides calendrical progression of the matter emerges and the same
captured and set out in the form of a tabulation is as follows:
Sl. Date Events Remarks
No.
1. 25.07.2021 State(Buyer) opened a Bid bearing -
reference GEM/2021/B/1382494 for
supply, installation and
commissioning of 860 nos. of
Desktops, 860 nos. of All-in-one
Desktops and 1720 nos. of UPS
systems.
2. 26.10.2021 Supply order said to have been Copy not placed before
issued by State (Buyer) to petitioner this Court by the
(Supplier){according to petitioner petitioner (Supplier).
(Supplier)}.
3. 19.04.2022 Surprise inspection by a vigilance According to
team in the warehouse of State petitioner(Supplier), R1
(Buyer) in the circuit house. office telephonically
informed the
petitioner(Supplier) to
stop further supply.
4. Petitioner (Supplier) contends that a Neither a copy is made
letter requesting for continuing available by the petitioner
supply was sent (Supplier) nor is the date
available.
5. 30.07.2022 Show cause notice issued by R2 to Copy not enclosed by the
petitioner(Supplier) (calling upon petitioner (Supplier)
petitioner(Supplier) to show-cause
as to why supply order should not be
foreclosed).
6. 04.08.2022 Petitioner's (Supplier's) preliminary Copy not placed before
reply to SCN this Court
7. 30.08.2022 Petitioner's main/final reply to SCN Copy not placed before
this Court.
8. 10.01.2024 State (Buyer) issued a letter Copy not placed before
cancelling the supply order this Court.
9. 09.02.2024 A letter from the petitioner(Supplier) State(Buyer)
pertaining to second part of acknowledgment dated
DRC(Dispute Resolution Clause) 09.02.2024 is available
requesting for constitution of but there is obvious error
coordination committee qua dispute in the date of this letter as
whenever arises. the date is shown as
30.03.2024. It is not clear
if parties made a
reasonable endeavor to
settle the dispute
amicably which is the first
part of DRC.
Page 2
10. 10.03.2024 30 days from the date of receipt of
the above letter by State ((Buyer)
elapsed.
11. 01.04.2024 A trigger letter from the petitioner Acknowledgment of
(Supplier) triggering the third part of State(Buyer) is available
DRC (arbitration) received by but here again there
State(Buyer). appears to be an error in
the date of the letter as
the same has been
received by State (buyer)
on 01.04.2024 whereas
the letter is dated
09.01.2024 which is prior
to 09.07.2024 which is
date of receipt of letter by
State (Buyer) requesting
constitution of co
ordination committee but
30 days from 09.01.2024
had lapsed on
30.03.2024.
12. 25.06.2024 Captioned arbitration petition filed in
this Court.
13. 26.09.2024 Predecessor Bench disposed of the To be noted, this order
captioned arbitration petition records that both sides
appointing a former Hon'ble High agreed for such a course.
Court Judge as sole arbitrator. Further to be noted, the
arbitration clause
provides for nomination
of an arbitrator by
primary buyer with a rider
that the arbitrator can be
a government servant.
14. 05.11.2024 State (Buyer) appointed Co- -
ordination Committee
15. 25.11.2024 State (Buyer) filed a review petition -
being Review.Pet.(J2) No. 2 of 2024
inter alia stating that the State
counsel did not agree for
appointment of an independent
arbitrator i.e., former Hon'ble High
Court Judge.
16. 19.12.2024 Review Petition allowed by -
Predecessor Bench
17. 02.01.2025 State (Buyer) cancelled 05.11.2024
communication appointing Co-
ordination Committee
18. 03.01.2025 Co-ordination Committee appointed
afresh.
Reverting to the narrative, this Court is informed that the
parties namely the petitioner(Supplier) and State(Buyer) are governed by
'General Terms And Conditions on GeM 3.0(Version 1.10)' (hereinafter 'GtC'
for the sake of convenience and clarity).
Page 3
Clause 16 of the GtC is the DRC and it is captioned 'Dispute
Resolution Between Buyer and Seller'. The afore-referred DRC serves as an
arbitration clause between buyer and seller being 'arbitration clause' within
the meaning of Section 2(1) (b) read with Section 7 of the A&C Act.
The arbitration clause/agreement provides for 30 days
written notice requesting for constitution of what is known as coordination
committee which is a resolution mechanism after reasonable endeavor of
parties to settle the dispute amicably.
In the case on hand, according to petitioner(Supplier), a
written notice qua this second part of DRC was received by State(buyer)
on 09.02.2024, 30 days elapsed on 10.03.2024 but no coordination
committee was constituted and that led to trigger notice which was
received by State(Buyer) on 01.04.2024.
In the above said scenario, Mr. M. Rarry, learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. M. Nikika, learned State counsel,
submits on instructions that the State counsel has filed an affidavit-in-
opposition with annexures but the same is not before this Court.
Let the Registry put up the affidavit-in-opposition along with
the annexures.
List on 20.11.2025.'
[4] The afore-referred 10.11.2025 proceedings shall now be read as an
integral part and parcel of instant order. This also means that the short forms,
abbreviations and short references used in the afore-referred 10.11.2025
proceedings shall continue to be used in the instant order also.
[5] Afore-referred 10.11.2025 proceedings captures and sets out the crux
and gravamen of the captioned matter containing essential facts imperative for
appreciating instant order . Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to not to
dilate more qua facts.
Page 4
[6] As regards the 10.11.2025 proceedings, learned counsel for petitioner,
learned State Counsel and learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the learned
State counsel, submit in one voice that the facts as well as the trajectory the matter
has taken thus far has been correctly captured and the only correction is with
regard to Sl. No.2 in the tabulation therein. The supply order issued by State (buyer)
is dated 16.10.2021. Both sides regret for the error in appraising this Court on facts
as the same has been recorded as 26.10.2021. This means that instant order will
serve as an errata/corrigendum with regard to Sl. No.2 in the tabulation in the
10.11.2025 proceedings and the date thereat being column No.2 in the Y-axis will
now read as 16.10.2021 instead of 26.10.2021.
[7] At the outset, this Court respectfully reminds itself that a 7(seven)
member Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Interplay between Arbitration
Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Stamp Act,
1899, In re reported in (2024) 6 SCC 1 has declared the law that A&C Act is a
self-contained code as it provides for a complete machinery to deal with the purpose
sought to be achieved by that law and its dependence on other legislations is either
absent or minimum. This declaration of law was made by reiterating an earlier
declaration of law made by a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girnar
Traders vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2011) 3 SCC 1.
[8] In Re-Interplay, Hon'ble Supreme Court made it clear that a legal
drill under Section 11 of A&C Act should be confined to and should perambulate
within a limited statutory perimeter vide sub-Section (6A) of Section 11. In this
regard, it was made clear that Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 1 is erroneous to the extent that it did not notice that
Page 5
sub-Section (6A) of Section 11 has not been deleted and thereafter, it was made
clear that the expression 'examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement'
occurring in sub-Section (6A) does not connote or imply a laborious or contested
inquiry and that it is limited to ascertaining/examining the prima facie existence of
an arbitration agreement. Therefore, the instant legal drill at hand will be confined
to this statutory perimeter being declaration of law made by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Interplay. In the case on hand, existence of arbitration agreement is not in
dispute. Clause-16 of the GtC is admittedly the dispute resolution Clause between
State(buyer) and the petitioner(seller) and this clause serves as arbitration
agreement within the meaning of Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 7 of A&C Act.
To be noted, as already set out in earlier proceedings dated 10.11.2025, GtC is a
reference to General Terms and Conditions on GeM 3.0(Version 1.10). This Clause-
16 reads as follows:
'16. Dispute Resolution Between Buyer and Seller:
AMICABLE SETTLEMENT:
In the event of any question, dispute or difference arising connection with
the Contract, the Parties shall use their respective reasonable endeavour
to settle any dispute amicably. If a Dispute is not resolved within 30 days
after written notice of any dispute by one Party to the other, the same shall
be resolved through the mechanism of a co-ordination committee to be
formed by the Buyer and Seller/Service Provider and to be chaired by the
Primary User of Buyer Organization/Department along with representatives
from Buyer Department and Seller.
ARBITRATION:
In the event of any question, dispute or difference arising under the terms
and conditions of the contract placed through GeM, the same shall be
referred to the sole arbitration by an officer nominated as Arbitrator by the
Primary Buyer of the concerned Buyer Organization. It will be no objection
that the arbitrator is a Government Servant and that he had to deal with
the matters to which the contract relates or that in the course of his duties
as a Government servant he has expressed views on all or any of the
matters in dispute or difference. The award of the arbitrator shall be final
and binding on the parties to the contract. The arbitration shall be governed
as per Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 as amended up to date.
Page 6
The place for arbitration shall be at the place from where contract has been
placed by the Buyer or at the place of Primary Buyer as decided by the
Primary Buyer.
In the event of the Arbitrator dying, neglecting or refusing to act or
resigning or being unable to act for any reason, or his award being set
aside by the court for any reason, it shall be lawful for the Primary Buyer
to appoint another arbitrator in place of the outgoing arbitrator in the
manner aforesaid.
In respect of all contract placed through GeM, the dispute would not be
referred or entertained by Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council,
Consumer Forum or any other adjudication forum.
All disputes in connection with the Contract, shall be subject to the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction, the place from where Contract was issued is situated
GeM SPV would not be a party to any such dispute/matter.'
[9] As the existence of arbitration agreement (Clause-16 of GtC ) is not in
dispute, that case will be the end of legal drill at hand but owing to the trajectory
the matter has taken thus far, this Court deems it appropriate to discuss and give
its dispositive reasoning qua 2(two) issues raised by learned senior counsel for
State. First issue is, learned senior counsel for State contended that the arbitration
agreement is a tiered agreement which provides for endeavor to amicable
settlement of dispute and in the event of failure of the same, it should be followed
by resolution through a mechanism of a coordination committee to be formed by
the State (buyer) and in the event of the resolution through coordination committee
mechanism also failing, arbitration should be resorted to.
[10] In the considered view of this Court, the afore-referred first contention
is clearly a non-starter as a plain perusal of Clause-16 i.e., arbitration clause makes
it clear that it provides for dispute resolution for 2(two) different kinds of contracts,
one is resolution of questions, dispute or differences arising under terms and
conditions of a contract simpliciter between State (buyer) and a supplier, while the
other is resolution of questions of, disputes or differences arising under terms and
Page 7
conditions of a contract placed through GeM. This Court, for the sake of abundant
clarity and specificity makes it clear that one is a contract which is entered into by
the State with another party dehors GeM portal and another is a contract placed
through GeM. While it is tiered for former it is not tiered and arbitration straightaway
for the latter. In the case on hand, it is clear as daylight and there is no disputation
or contestation that we are concerned with a contract placed through GeM.
[11] Reverting to Clause-16 providing for dispute resolution for 2(two)
kinds of contracts, the first part of Clause-16 makes it clear that contracts simpliciter
i.e., contracts dehors GeM are those where question, dispute or differences arising
from such contracts shall first be endeavored to be settled amicably and if that fails,
the mechanism of a coordination committee to be formed by State (buyer) will be
resorted to followed by arbitration by sole arbitrator. A completely different dispute
resolution has been provided for contracts placed through GeM(contract qua case
at hand). This is any question, dispute or difference arising from such contracts
placed through GeM, shall straightaway be referred to arbitration by a sole
arbitrator. This leads this Section 11 Court to the indisputable obtaining position
about the existence of an arbitration agreement providing for arbitration by a sole
arbitrator for the contract at hand.
[12] Before proceeding further, this Court makes it clear that even on a
demurrer, the question as to whether an arbitration agreement provides for tiered
arbitration (if there is any doubt) will be outside the legal perimeter within which a
Section 11 legal drill should perambulate. To be noted, there is allusion about this
supra by respectfully placing reliance on Interplay where it was made clear that
the expression 'examination' occurring in sub-Section (6A) of Section 11 does not
Page 8
connote or imply a laborious or contested inquiry as Section 16 provides for arbitral
tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction including existence and validity of an arbitration
agreement. It was also made clear that a Section 11 Court (Referral Court) is only
required to examine the existence of arbitration agreements whereas arbitral
tribunal ought to rule on its jurisdiction including issues pertaining to validity of an
arbitration agreement. Be that as it may, this paragraph of the order has been
written only for abundant clarity and for the sake of specificity as in the case on
hand, as already alluded to supra, it is clear as daylight that as regards contracts
placed through GeM, the dispute resolution Clause provides for arbitration by a sole
arbitrator and there is no disputation that we are concerned with a contract placed
through GeM.
[13] This takes this Court to the second issue raised by learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of learned State counsel. Learned senior counsel
contended that the sole arbitrator shall be appointed by the State (buyer) and that
there will be no objection if the arbitrator is a Government servant or for that matter
there can be no objection even if this Government servant had dealt with matters
to which the contract relates or if in the course of his duties as a Government
servant, he has expressed views on all or any of the major disputes or differences.
This argument neither weighs with this Court nor impresses this referral Court as it
is contrary to the obtaining position of law. To be noted, the obtaining legal position
is, when only one party has a right to appoint a sole arbitrator, such a choice will
always have an element of exclusivity in determining or charting the course of
dispute resolution and therefore, such an appointment cannot be made as it mars
the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator. This principle was laid down by
Page 9
Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and another vs.
HSCC (India) Limited reported in (2020) 20 SCC 760 To be noted, Perkins
also reiterated TRF Limited vs. Energo Engineering Projects Limited reported
in (2017) 8 SCC 377 which made it clear that once an arbitrator becomes ineligible
by operation of law, he cannot nominate another arbitrator. Thereafter, a
Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Organisation for
Railway Electrification (CORE II) vs. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) reported in
(2025) 4 SCC 641 adverted to the question of appointment of an arbitrator from
a panel of potential arbitrators maintained by Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) and
made it clear that arbitration clause that allows one party to unilaterally appoint a
sole arbitrator gives rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence and impartiality
of the arbitrator and that such unilateral clauses are exclusive and they hinder equal
participation of the other party in the appointment process of arbitrators. It may not
be necessary to dilate further and delve into CORE II as we are not concerned with
the case where the arbitration clause provides for appointment of an arbitrator from
a panel of potential arbitrators maintained by State. This is a case of unilateral
appointment of a sole arbitrator by one of parties i.e., State. However, this Section
11 referral Court has respectfully adverted to Core II as Core II specifically
reiterates TRF and Perkins principles. In Voestalpine Schienen GmbH v. Delhi
Metro Rail Corporation Ltd reported in (2017) 4 SCC 665, the question as to
whether a panel of arbitrators prepared by a State entities/instrumentalities of the
State qua Section 12 of the A&C Act arose and it was held that the situation can be
remedied if a choice is given to both parties to nominate any person from the panel.
Thereafter, in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification (CORE I) vs.
Page 10
ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) reported in (2020) 14 SCC 712 the question as to
whether retired railway officers being appointed as arbitrators is valid in the light of
Section 12(5) and relying on Voestalpine it was held that there is no bar for former
employees being appointed as arbitrators. In CORE II, a 7 member Bench of
Hon'ble Supreme Court made it clear that it disagrees with Voestalpine, CORE I
and it resurrected TRF and Perkins. In the light of the narrative thus far, it is clear
that existence of arbitration agreement is clear as daylight but unilateral
appointment of sole arbitrator by State(buyer) cannot be permitted in the light of
Perkins and TRF principles.
[14] As would be evident from the calendrical progression the matter has
taken thus far, to put it differently, the trajectory the matter has taken thus far,
Review.Pet.(J2) No. 2 of 2024 filed by State being allowed by this Hon'ble
Court(Predecessor Hon'ble Single Bench) does not come in the way as the review
petition was allowed on the sole ground that in the earlier round, State Counsel did
not agree for appointment of an independent arbitrator. In this regard, this Section
11 referral Court reminds itself of the oft quoted R.S Nayak (Ramdas Srinivas
Nayak) case law {State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Srinivas Nayak reported
in (1982) 2 SCC 463} which made it clear that if a party thinks that happenings
in Court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon such party
to call the attention of the very same Hon'ble Court which made the record when it
is still fresh in the minds of the Court and have the same corrected. Therefore,
though the review petition was allowed by successor Hon'ble Chief Justice on
19.12.2024 is only a correction as regards the position that learned State counsel
did not consent or agree for appointment of an independent arbitrator has been
Page 11
made. To put it differently, it only means that learned State counsel is contending
that the State can make unilateral appointment and in any event Section 11 legal
drill has been left open vide review order. Both parties have accepted the review
order and are now arguing the captioned arbitration petition pursuant to review
order. To be noted, in the instant legal drill also, learned senior counsel for State
has contended that as per the arbitration clause the State can make unilateral
appointment of sole arbitrator but this Court by respectfully following Perkins and
TRF principles as reiterated in CORE II, has negatived the contention.
[15] To conclude and as a matter of summation, this referral Court deems
it appropriate to write that it would be clear from the narrative, discussion and
dispositive reasoning thus far that both the grounds on which the captioned
arbitration petition under Section 11 of A&C Act was resisted by the learned State
counsel have been negatived and therefore, this Court proceeds to appoint sole
arbitrator.
[16] Before making appointment of sole arbitrator, for the sake of
abundant clarity and specificity this Court deems it appropriate to extract and
reproduce the order dated 26.09.2024 made by one Hon'ble predecessor Chief
Justice in Arb.P.(J2) No. 3 of 2024 and order dated 19.12.2024 made by another
Hon'ble predecessor Chief Justice in the Review.Pet.(J2) No. 2 of 2024 which read
as follows:
'26.09.2024
Mr. H. Kenajit, learned counsel, appears on behalf of the
petitioners and Mr. S. Nepolean, learned GA, appears on behalf of the State
of Manipur.
The present arbitration petition under Sub-Section (6) of
Section 11 read with Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Page 12
(hereinafter the Act) has been instituted on behalf of Mr. Manoj Kumar
Patni, the sole Proprietor of M/s. Sanmati Traders (the petitioner) praying
as follows:
"8. That, in the premises stated above, it is therefore, prayed that
Your Lordship may graciously be pleased:-
i) to admit this arbitration petition;
ii) to appoint an Arbitrator for the purpose of adjudicating the
claims and disputes between the petitioner and the
respondents with regard to Contract No. GEMC-
511687720476612 dated 16.10.2021;
iii) to pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience"
It is an admitted position that the State of Manipur
(respondent) through the Secretary (GAD), Government of Manipur opened
the Bid Number: GEM/2021/B/1382494 on 25.07.2021 for supply,
installation and commissioning of (1) 860 nos. of Desktops; (2) 860 nos. of
860 All-in-one Desktop; and (3) 1720 nos. of UPS.
It is further an admitted position that the petitioner was
awarded the bid on 16.10.2021 being Bid No. GEMC-511687720476612
without any right given to the petitioner to negotiate or amend any clauses
of the contract and the recommendation of prospective bidders to extend
the delivery schedule by 6-8 months was neither considered nor
incorporated in the contract.
It is further an admitted position that General terms and
conditions on GeM 3.0 (Version 1.10) of the Contract provided for formation
of coordinating committee to settle inter se disputes between the parties.
It is further an admitted positon that in the event, the
coordinating committee was not constituted or was unable to settle the
dispute, the same had to be referred to an Arbitrator to be nominated by
the respondent.
It is not denied that despite communications addressed to
the respondent dated the 9th February, 2024 and 1st April, 2024 no
coordinating committee in terms of the General terms and conditions was
formed nor was an Arbitrator nominated to settle the inter se disputes that
Page 13
have admittedly arisen between the parties in relation to the subject Bid
No. GEM/2021/B/1382494.
It is in this backdrop that the petitioner has instituted the
present proceeding seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the
claims and disputes between the parties in relation to the said contract
dated 16th October, 2021.
In view of the foregoing, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the parties, on instructions from the latter, stated that a retired
Judge of the High Court may be appointed by this Court as the sole
Arbitrator to adjudicate the claims and disputes between the parties.
Consequently, in view of the facts and circumstances as
elaborated hereinabove and with the consent of the parties, I appoint
Justice U.B. Saha, Former Chairperson, Manipur Human Rights Commission
and Former Judge, Tripura High Court, (Tripura Residence: Camp Office,
Gorkha Basti, Airport Road, Agartala, Tripura and Kolkata Residence: BF
67, Street No. 64, Kolkata New Town, Adjacent to Gate No. 3, Swapna
Bhore, Senior Citizen Park, (Mobile Number:- 9436120069); as the Sole
Arbitrator to adjudicate the claims and disputes between the parties with
regard to Bid No. GEM/2021/B/1382494. Needless to state that the
arbitration proceedings shall be governed by the provision of Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended up to date.
The present arbitration petition is accordingly allowed and
disposed of.
A copy of this order be sent to Hon'ble sole arbitrator as well
as to the counsel for the parties.'
'19.12.2024
Mr. M. Devananda, learned Additional Advocate General,
Manipur, appearing for the review petitioners, submitted that arbitration
petition, being Arb. P. (J2) No. 3 of 2024, came up for hearing on
26.09.2024 and on that day, Mr. S. Nepolean, learned Government
Advocate, appeared on behalf of the State of Manipur. Final order was
passed in the aforesaid arbitration petition on the said day by recording the
Page 14
statement of the counsel for the parties. Relevant portion of the order is
extracted as follows:
"In view of the foregoing, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the parties, on instructions from the latter, stated that a
retired Judge of the High Court may be appointed by this Court as
the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the claims and disputes between
the parties."
Recording the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the parties, this Court has appointed a Former Judge
of the High Court.
Learned Additional Advocate General, Manipur, submitted
that on receipt of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, Ms. RK Emily
Devi, learned Dy. Government Advocate, sent a communication to the
Department on 14.10.2024, by stating that the learned senior counsel
appearing for the State respondents has not actually made the above
extracted statement before the Court and therefore, made a request to
take a decision for filing a review petition at the earliest.
Learned Additional Advocate General, Manipur, further
submitted that as per the agreement entered between the parties, if any
dispute arises between the parties, the said dispute shall be referred to an
Arbitrator, who is a Government servant.
Mr. H. Kenajit, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent, made an objection stating that the said order was passed by
this Court with the consent of the parties. According to him, no prejudice
is caused to the review petitioners, if a former Judge of the High Court is
appointed as an Arbitrator to decide the issues among the parties
concerned.
After hearing both the parties, this Court is of the view that
any concession given by the Government Advocate, without getting any
specific instructions, should not be a binding on the department as decided
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Periyar and Pareekanni
Rubbers Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, reported in AIR 1990 SC 2192.
Relevant para is extracted below:
Page 15
"9. ...........Any concession made by the government pleader in the
Trial Court cannot bind the Government as it is obviously, always,
unsafe to rely on the wrong or erroneous or wanton concession made
by the counsel appearing for the State unless it is in writing on
instructions from the responsible officer. Otherwise it would place
undue and needless heavy burden on the public exchequer. But the
same yardstick cannot be applied when the Advocate General has
made a statement across the bar since the Advocate General makes
the statement with all responsibility."
The aforesaid decision has been relied upon in the recent
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar
Sahoo and Ors. Vs. Charulata Sahu and Ors, reported in (2023) 9
SCC 641 in para 101 sub-para 29 of the said decision.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein
has not specifically denied the contention made by the review petitioners
in the affidavit and in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. (Supra), this Court accepts
the submission made by the review petitioners and consequently, the order
passed by this Court dated 26.09.2024 in Arb. P. (J2) No. 3 of 2024 is
recalled.
The present review petition is accordingly allowed.
List Arb. P. (J2) No. 3 of 2024 for hearing on 23.01.2025.
In the meantime, the review petitioners may file their
counter affidavit, if any, in the Arbitration Petition.'
[17] A careful perusal of the earlier order and the review order makes it
clear that review was not on the ground of any objection to the sole arbitrator
(former Hon'ble Judge of Tripura High Court) being appointed and the review was
only on the ground that learned State counsel has not made a concession. In any
event earlier order in captioned Arbitration Petition was set aside, captioned
Page 16
arbitration petition has been resurrected for being heard out and both sides have
given legal quietus and are arguing captioned arbitration petition. Therefore, there
is no impediment in appointing the same sole arbitrator by an order of this Court
dehors any concession from learned State counsel and on the contrary, by
negativing both the points on which learned State counsel resisted the captioned
section 11 petition.
[18] There is no disputation that the place from where contract has been
placed by State(buyer) is Imphal, Manipur. The place for State (primary buyer) is
Imphal, Manipur and therefore, the seat of arbitration shall be Imphal, Manipur.
[19] Ergo, the sequitur is, this Court appoints Hon'ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,
Former Chairperson, Manipur Human Rights Commission and Former Judge, Tripura
High Court, (Tripura Residence: Camp Office, Gorkha Basti, Airport Road, Agartala,
Tripura and Kolkata Residence: BF 67, Street No. 64, Kolkata New Town, Adjacent
to Gate No. 3, Swapna Bhore, Senior Citizen Park, (Mobile Number:- 9436120069)
as sole arbitrator to adjudicate questions, disputes and differences arising from
contract placed through GeM pertaining to Bid dated 25.07.2021 bearing reference
GEM/2021/B/1382494, supply order dated 16.10.2021 which is governed by GtC
and Clause-16 therein. Though obvious, it is made clear that the arbitration
proceedings will be governed by A&C Act and the fee for the Hon'ble Arbitrator will
stand governed by Schedule IV of A&C Act.
[20] Captioned arbitration petition disposed of in the aforesaid manner.
There shall be no order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Indrajeet
Page 17
