Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision: 18.03.2026 vs Mr. Mayven T. Marbaniang on 18 March, 2026
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2026:MLHC:234-DB
Serial No. 01
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Cont.Cas(C) No. 4 of 2024
Date of Decision: 18.03.2026
State of Meghalaya
Through Secretary
Urban Affairs Department
......... Petitioner
- Vs-
1. Mr. Mayven T. Marbaniang
Managing Director
M/s Marbaniang Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Spring Side Road, Jingkieng,
Nongthymmai,
Shillong,
Meghalaya-793014
......... Contemnor No. 1
2. M/s Marbaniang Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Through M.D, Spring Side Road,
Jingkieng, Nongthymmai, Shillong,
Meghalaya-793014.
......... Contemnor No. 2
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. N. Syngkon, GA.
Mr. J.N. Rynjah, GA.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Paul, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. K. Decruse, Adv.
Ms. B.F. Kharwanlang, Adv.
Mr. B. Snaitang, Adv.
1
2026:MLHC:234-DB
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
Per W. Diengdoh, (J):
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
1. It is brought to the notice of this Court that there is a pending
proceeding between the parties before the Arbitral Tribunal. In course of
proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal, the respondent No. 1 therein, being
the State of Meghalaya had filed an application seeking interim directions
including securing payments of the lease rental amount, which is not paid by
the claimant.
2. Upon hearing the parties, the Arbitral Tribunal vide order dated
08.11.2023, the same being modified vide order dated 10.11.2023, have made
certain directions therein, directing the claimant to deposit and make certain
payments. It was also directed that the claimant shall furnish a bank guarantee
for an amount of ₹ 2 crores in favour of the respondent No. 1.
3. In this backdrop, the State respondent have preferred another
application with a prayer for initiation of contempt proceedings against the
claimant therein for non-compliance and disobedient of the said order dated
08.11.2023 and 10.11.2023. The Arbitral Tribunal upon hearing the parties,
vide order dated 19.02.2024, have at para 5 of the same, observed as follows:
2
2026:MLHC:234-DB
“5. Since this Tribunal does not possess the power and
jurisdiction to take action under the Contempt of Court Act, yet we
feel that this matter would require a strict action and therefore the
contempt proceedings to be taken up by the Hon’ble High Court of
Meghalaya. We therefore, refer the matter to the Registry of the
Hon’ble High Court of Meghalaya for placing the matter before the
Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Hon’ble High Court of Meghalaya to
pass necessary orders for doing the needful in the matter. The
matter shall be placed before the Registry with this order along
with all other relevant documents by the counsel appearing for the
respondent no. 1. We may however make it clear that this order
would not be in any manner construed as a fetter on the rights of
the respondent no. 1 to take all other course of action that may be
available to the respondent no. 1 for such non compliance in
accordance with law.”
4. In the meantime, the petitioner/State of Meghalaya has also
approached this Court with an application under Section 12 of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971, seeking contempt proceedings to be initiated against the
contemnors herein for violation of the said order dated 08.11.2023 and
10.11.2023 respectively, passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.
5. When this matter was taken up by this Court, the contemnors, at
the outset, has raised the issue of maintainability of this petition. Accordingly,
this Court has heard the parties on this point.
6. Heard Mr. N. Syngkon, learned GA appearing for the State
petitioner who has submitted that the High Court is competent to deal with an
issue involving contempt of court, even, if such act of contempt has arisen
from proceedings of an Arbitral Tribunal, since by virtue of the provision of
Section 27(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, any act of
3
2026:MLHC:234-DBcontempt or the like shall be subject to punishment by order of the court, on
the representation of the Arbitral Tribunal. This proposition of law has been
distinctly brought-out in the case of Sri. Krishan v. Anand reported in 2009
(112) DRJ 657, para 11, 12 and 13, submits the learned counsel.
7. The learned counsel went on to submit that the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Alka Chandewar v. Shamshul Ishrar Khan, (2017) 16 SCC
119, para 1, 2, 6, 7, 9 and 10 had held that any contempt of the Arbitral
Tribunal during the arbitral proceedings is covered under Section 27(5) of the
Arbitration Act and any order passed by the Tribunal under Section 17 are
now by virtue of Sub-section 2 of Section 17, deemed to be order passed by
the court and therefore, disobedience thereof are subject to contempt
proceedings.
8. Coming to the issue of maintainability, the learned GA has referred
to the order dated 19.02.2024 (supra) and has submitted that on a reading of
the said order particularly para 5 of the same, it is clear that the Arbitral
Tribunal has referred the matter to the registry of this Court to be placed before
the Hon’ble Chief Justice for passing necessary orders, however, it is also
indicated in the said order that the respondent No. 1 the State petitioner herein,
is free to take any course of action that may be available to it to do so for such
compliance in accordance with law.
4
2026:MLHC:234-DB
9. Accordingly, by way of this instant contempt petition the State
petitioner has placed the order of the Tribunal along with other relevant
materials before the registry of this Court. Initially, in view of Rules 6(2) of
the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Meghalaya) Rules 2013, which
provides that “Every petition, motion, or reference in relation to civil
contempt shall, unless directed otherwise by the Chief Justice be laid before
the Single Bench”, the matter was listed before the Single Bench of this Court,
which vide order dated 04.07.2024 had directed the registry to place the matter
before the Hon’ble Chief Justice. Thereafter, when the matter was placed
before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for necessary directions, the Hon’ble Chief
Justice has passed an order for the matter to be placed before this Bench for
determination.
10. The learned GA has also submitted that, even otherwise, under
Rules 9 of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Meghalaya) Rules 2013, it
is provided that there are three ways in which this Court can take action in a
case of civil contempt, viz; (a) on its own motion; or (b) on a petition presented
by the party aggrieved; or (c) in case of any civil contempt of a subordinate
court, on a reference made by that court. Under this provision, this instant
petition is maintainable when the same can be construed to have been a
petition presented by the party aggrieved where such action was also allowed
to be taken on a reading of para 5 of the said order dated 19.02.2024.
5
2026:MLHC:234-DB
11. In the light of the above contention and submission, the learned
GA has submitted that this instant petition is maintainable and the merits of
the same may be taken up for hearing by this Court.
12. Mr. K. Paul, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. K. Decruse,
learned counsel for the contemnors, while opposing the contention and
submission of the learned GA for the State petitioner, has submitted that vide
order dated 19.02.2024, the Arbitral Tribunal at para 5 has specifically
directed that the contempt proceedings be referred to the registry of the
Hon’ble High Court of Meghalaya for placing the matter before the Hon’ble
Chief Justice to pass necessary orders for doing the needful in the matter. The
admitted position is that till date, there has been no reference made by the
Tribunal before this Court or rather before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this
Court. What is apparent is that, there is an application under Section 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act filed by the State petitioner. Accordingly, since the
said reference has not been answered, therefore, there cannot be two parallel
proceedings in respect of the same subject matter.
13. The learned Sr. counsel has also submitted that the petitioner/
respondent State appears to have preferred an application under Section 27(5)
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Tribunal, however, there is
no order indicating approval or grant of such approval by the learned Arbitral
Tribunal, and as such, there has been inadequate compliance of Section 27 of
6
2026:MLHC:234-DB
the Act. This has been reflected in the order dated 19.02.2024, where the
learned Arbitral Tribunal was not inclined to grant approval to the petitioner
State to initiate contempt proceedings, but rather that the matter be referred
for consideration of the Hon’ble Chief Justice.
14. Under such circumstances, this instant petition filed by the State
petitioner cannot be sustained in the absence of a formal reference by the
Arbitral Tribunal before this Court, the same to be placed before the Hon’ble
Chief Justice, who will then pass necessary orders for the appropriate bench
to take up the matter, which is absent in this case, reiterates the learned Sr.
counsel. This petition is therefore not maintainable and the same is liable to
be dismissed, it is further submitted.
15. Having heard the submission and contention of the learned
counsels for the rival parties, on the issue of maintainability of this petition,
we are to decide whether there has been made a reference for initiation of
contempt proceedings against the contemnors herein, and whether such
process was in accordance with the rules applicable.
16. As has been submitted, the learned Arbitral Tribunal, on
application, has vide order dated 19.02.2024, is convinced that its orders dated
08.11.2023 and 10.11.2023 have been violated, and as such, contempt
proceeding is to be initiated against the contemnors herein. However, because
of the prevalence of the related provisions of law, vis-a vis the power of the
7
2026:MLHC:234-DB
High Court in contempt proceedings, the Tribunal deems it fit for the matter
to be referred to this Court for necessary action.
17. It is true that initially, there was no process carried out for bringing
such reference to the attention of this Court by the Tribunal. However, the
State petitioner herein relying on the language of the order dated 19.02.2024,
wherein the Tribunal has also given liberty to the respondent No. 1/State
petitioner herein to take all other course of action for such non-compliance in
accordance with law, has approached this Court with this instant petition
preferred under the provisions of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971.
18. The learned GA has maintained that this petition has also been
filed resorting to the provisions of Rules 9 of the Contempt of Courts (High
Court of Meghalaya) Rules 2013, where it is also provided that the contempt
proceedings can be initiated on the prayer of the person or party aggrieved.
We find nothing wrong with the approach of the State petitioner in this regard.
19. Another aspect of the matter which has been pointed out by the
learned GA is that a Single Judge of this Court vide order 04.07.2024 has
acknowledged the order dated 19.02.2024 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal and
has therefore directed that the matter be placed before the Hon’ble Chief
Justice, which in effect, would mean that the reference by the Arbitral Tribunal
has now been brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Chief Justice.
8
2026:MLHC:234-DB
20. Correspondingly, when the matter was placed before the Hon’ble
Chief Justice for necessary order, vide order dated 09.07.2024, it was directed
that the same be placed before a Division Bench of J2 and J3, meaning this
bench.
21. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the
process of reference by the Arbitral Tribunal to this Court has been completed
and accordingly, we hereby acknowledge the same in this proceeding.
22. Consequently, we find that this petition is maintainable, the
objection of the contemnors having no substance as far as the legal provision
is concerned, and as to the stand taken that the reference from the Arbitral
Tribunal has not been brought to the notice of this Court, the same has been
answered hereinabove.
23. Accordingly, we find and hold that this petition is maintainable
and the same to be heard on merits.
24. List this matter after 2(two) weeks for filing of the show cause by
the contemnors.
(B. Bhattacharjee) (W. Diengdoh)
Judge Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by 9
DARIKORDOR NARY
Date: 2026.03.18 18:48:39 IST
