Manipur High Court
Mwc Market Services Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Manipur & 4 Ors on 12 November, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
1
Digitally signed by
JOHN JOHN TELEN KOM
Sl. No. 32&33
TELEN KOM Date: 2025.11.13
14:21:13 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Arb. A. No.1 of 2022
With
MC(Arb.A.)No.1 of 2022
MWC Market Services PVT. LTD
Appellant
Vs.
State of Manipur & 4 ors.
Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
(ORDER)
(Order of the Court was made by M. Sundar, CJ)
12.11.2025.
[1] Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier
proceedings made in the listing on 05.11.2025 which reads as follow:
'[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 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 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;
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.'
[2] Today, Mr. S. Bhandari, learned counsel alongwith Mr. K.
Pradeep, learned counsel for the sole appellant is before us in the physical
court. As regards State of Manipur & 4 others(R1 to R5), Ms. Elizabeth,
learned counsel is before us in the physical court and Mr. GN Sahewalla,
learned senior counsel who is leading her is before us on the V.C platform.
[3] All the afore-mentioned learned counsel adverting to earlier
proceeding dated 05.11.2025 submit in unison that the facts, other details
and the trajectory the matter has taken thus far have been correctly
captured and the same will be the platform for further submissions. This
common submission of all the afore-referred counsel is recorded.
[4] Be that as it may, one of us(Mr. Justice A. Guneshwar
Sharma) heard the captioned matter shortly as section a 34 court (District
Judge-District Judge then Manipur East, now Imphal East). All the
aforementioned learned counsel and the senior counsel on instructions
submit in one voice that they have no reservation in the captioned section
37 of 'the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996' statutory appeal being
heard out by this Bench. This common submission of all the counsel and
the senior counsel 'on instruction from their respective litigants' is recorded.
[5] Owing to the board today, more particularly this court is
hearing out a part heard matter pursuant to a expedite order made by
Hon'ble supreme court, captioned main matter and MC thereat are re-
notified to 04.12.2025.
[6] List on 04.12.2025.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
John Kom
