Water Resource Department vs M/S Keystone Infra Private Limited on 8 April, 2025

Manipur High Court

Water Resource Department vs M/S Keystone Infra Private Limited on 8 April, 2025

Author: A.Guneshwar Sharma

Bench: A.Guneshwar Sharma

                                                            Supp 1-2
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                      AT IMPHAL

WP(C) No.298 of 2025 with
MC (WP(C)) No.273 of 2025


Water Resource Department, Manipur
through the Executive Engineer,
Dolaithabi Barrage Division No.2,
(Former IFC Department), Imphal-
795001, Manipur.                             ... Petitioner

                             -Versus-
M/s Keystone Infra Private Limited,
No.8-2-338/6, Road No.3, Panchavati
Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-
500034 Telangana                             ... Respondent

BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA
8.4.2025
Heard Mr.M.Rarry, learned senior counsel assisted by
Ms.Nikita, learned counsel for the petitioner.

[2]           Issue Notice to the sole respondent.


[3]           Petitioner is directed to take steps by speed post, dasti

and any other permissible mode of service and file affidavit for proof
of service within one month.

[4]           List this case on 25.4.2025.

[5]           Mr.Rarry, learned senior counsel for the petitioner

prays for stay of the impugned order dated 12.3.2025 passed by the
learned District Judge, Imphal West in Arbitration Petition No.1 of
2024 and subsequent consequential order dated 18.3.2025 passed
by the learned sole Arbitrator in fixing next date of proceeding the
arbitration on 9.4.2025.

[6] It is submitted that in terms of clause (25) of the
Contract Agreement and vide order dated 10.12.2022 issued by the
Deputy Secretary, WR, Government of Manipur, Hon’ble Dr.Arijit
Pasayat, former Judge, Supreme Court of India, was appointed as
sole Arbitrator to settle the dispute between the parties, i.e. M/S
Keystone Infra Pvt Ltd (respondent herein) and the Water Resource
Deptt, Government of Manipur. It is submitted that in terms of
Section 29 A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the term
of making an arbitral award expired on 9.12.2023, on expiry of the
12 (twelve) months, as no consent was given by the petitioner for
extension in terms of section 29 A (3) of the Act.

[7] It is stated that after expiry of the term of arbitral
tribunal under Section 15 (2), a new Arbitrator has been substituted
vide order dated 29.8.2024 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Water
Resource, Government of Manipur, in the name of Governor. It is
stated that subsequent order dated 29.8.2024 for appointment of
substituted Arbitrator, i.e. Shri Th.Joykumar Singh, retired Chief
Engineer, PWD has not been challenged before any forum. After
appointment of the new substitute arbitrator, respondent herein
filed application on 23.9.2024 being Arbitration Petition No.1 of 2024
before the learned District Judge, Imphal West, inter alia, praying
for extension of time for one year under Section 29A (4) and 29A
(5) of the Act. The prayer in the Arbitration Petition No.1 of 2024 is
reproduced hereunder:

” (a) Regularize the period already undergone from
10.6.2024 until the day of passing of the order in the
present petition.

(b) Extend the time limit for completion of pleading
and for the purpose of passing of the Award by further
period of one year in the arbitration proceedings titled
as Keystone Infra Pvt Ltd Vs State of Manipur as
related to the project: in the interest of justice;

(c) Any other or further order/s, which, this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in view of the above
said facts and circumstances.”

[8] Order dated 29.08.2024, appointing new Arbitrator
has not been challenged and vide impugned order dated 12.3.2025,
the learned District Judge, Imphal West allowed the petition.

[9] It is submitted that in terms of Section 29A (1), the
mandate of arbitral tribunal expired on 9.12.2025 after a lapse of 12
months and since there was no agreement for extension, the
learned District Judge, wrongly assumed the mandate expired on
9.6.2024. It is also stated that in the statute there is no provision
for regularising term already lapsed for extension. It is also
submitted that without challenging the appointment of substitute
arbitrator vide order dated 29.8.2024 the same has been impliedly
set aside by the impugned order and restored the earlier terminated
proceeding of Hon’ble Mr.Arijit Pasayat, appointed vide order dated
10.2.2022.

[10] Mr.M.Rarry, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
also submits that the learned District Judge, has no jurisdiction to
exercise power for appointment of substitute arbitrator. Learned
senior counsel further submits that the impugned order dated
12.03.2025 striking down appointment of substitute arbitrator vide
order dated 29.8.2024 needs to be set aside for the same being not
challenged before the learned District Judge. Restoring the earlier
terminated appointment of Arbitrator on 10.2.2022 is also without
basis.

[11] It is submitted that the same is against the settled
principles of law and the order which is not challenged cannot be
set aside. It is submitted that in terms of the impugned order dated
12.03.2025, the earlier Arbitrator vide order dated 18.3.2025 fixed
next date for arbitration proceedings on 9.4.2025. It is submitted
that if the impugned order and subsequent proceedings are not
stayed, it will cause further complications.

[12] This court has considered the materials on record and
provisions of law and submissions made at the Bar. The impugned
order dated 12.3.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Imphal
West and subsequent order passed by the learned Arbitrator on
18.3.2025 fixing next date for arbitration proceedings on 9.4.2025
are stayed till the next date.

Furnish a copy of this order to learned counsel for the
petitioner through WhatsApp.

JUDGE

Priyojit

RAJKUMA Digitally signed
by RAJKUMAR
R PRIYOJIT PRIYOJIT SINGH
Date: 2025.04.10
SINGH 10:00:53 +05’30’