Manipur High Court
Mwc Market Services Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Manipur And 5 Others on 5 November, 2025
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.11.06 18:04:45 +05'30'
Sl. No. 35-36
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Arb.A. No. 1 of 2022
MWC Market Services Pvt. Ltd.
Appellant
Vs.
State of Manipur and 5 others
Respondents
Clubbed with MC(Arb.A.) No. 1 of 2022
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M. Sundar, CJ) 05.11.2025 [1] Captioned main appeal is a statutory appeal under Section 37 of 'the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996)' {hereinafter 'A and C Act' for the sake of brevity}.
[2] Captioned appeal has been filed assailing an order dated 24.02.2021 made by a Section 34 Court (District Judge, Imphal East) dismissing a Section 34 petition and confirming an arbitral award dated 30.06.2012 made by an Arbitral Tribunal (AT) constituted by a former Hon'ble judge of the High Court (sole Arbitrator). [3] Mr. S. Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Debojit Senapati, learned State counsel for respondents 1 to 5 (collectively State) are before us in the physical court. Learned State counsel is led by
1|Page learned senior counsel Mr. G.N. Sahewalla who is before us on the V.C. platform.
[4] At the outset, both sides fairly agreed that the former Hon'ble judge of High Court who, as sole arbitrator (AT) rendered the award dated 30.06.2012 can be deleted from the array of respondents. Therefore, applying Vinay Heavy Equipments procedure {Zonal General Manager, Ircon International Limited Vs. Vinay Heavy Equipments reported in 2007 SCC OnLine SC4 and Zonal General Manager, Ircon International Limited Vs. Vinay Heavy Equipments reported in (2015) 13 SCC 680} put in place by Hon'ble Supreme Court, as also the sublime philosophy underlying Section 42-B of A and C Act and with the consent of both sides, R6 (respondent No. 6) is deleted from the array of parties. To be noted, Vinay Heavy Equipments procedure is buttressed by Judgment Jogendrasinhji Vikaysinhji principle which says that only a Tribunal which is to defend its own orders will normally be impleaded in proceedings assailing orders made by a Tribunal. It is further to be noted that Jogendrasinhji caselaw citation is (2015) 9 SCC 1. [5] As regards the trajectory the matter has taken, it appears to have a chequered history. The genesis is a contract dated 05.04.2001 which is a contract for appointing the appellant as exclusive sole selling agent for Manipur State Online Lotteries, this contract ran into rough weather, the
2|Page arbitration clause in the contract was triggered, a sole arbitrator was appointed by a Section 11 Court (Gauhati High Court) in and by an order dated 24.05.2002, this arbitration proceedings culminated in a consent award dated 26.07.2002 with a correction dated 26.08.2002, the consent award further culminated in an agreement dated 20.11.2002 with an addenda dated 02.08.2003, this agreement again ran into rough weather triggering the arbitration clause again leading to second round of arbitration proceedings which culminated in an award dated 30.06.2012 about which there is allusion supra. This award went against the contractor, the contractor as protagonist of Section 34, moved the Section 34 Court and 'the Section 34 Court in and by order dated 24.02.2021' ('impugned order' for convenience) dismissed the 34 petition confirming the arbitral award and that has led to the captioned statutory appeal which is before us. [6] As regards the statutory appeal, Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for State very fairly submitted that the 34 Court had applied the pre 23.10.2015 regime and there is no disputation that the pre 23.10.2015 regime applied for the Section 34 legal drill.
[7] As regards the appeal, learned counsel for appellant submitted that he would predicate his arguments on 3 (three) points and they are as follows :
i) Public policy;
3|Page
ii) patent illegality (to be noted only patent illegality qua judicial pronouncement (Saw Pipes) and not 34 (2)A as it is pre 23.10.2015 regime);
iii) Section 28(3).
[8] Learned counsel for appellant also very fairly submitted that he would confine his challenge to damages of a little over 10 crores which the contractor has been multed with vide the impugned arbitral award which has been confirmed by the Section 34 court.
[9] Both sides requested for scheduling on a date for productive hearing/arguments.
[10] List on 12.11.2025.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sushil
Upload forthwith
4|Page