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
