Manipur High Court
State Of Manipur & 2 Ors vs M/S The Simplex Infrastructures Ltd on 8 July, 2026
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Item No. 1-2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MAF No. 1 of 2026 with
MC(MAF) No. 1 of 2026
State of Manipur & 2 Ors.
.....Appellant/s
-Versus-
M/S The Simplex Infrastructures Ltd.
....Respondent/s
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
Order
08.07.2026
[1] Heard Mr. M. Devananda, learned Addl. A.G. assisted by Ms.
N. Jyotsana, learned counsel and Mr. Tomclist, learned counsel for the
State appellant.
[2] The petitioner is aggrieved by impugned order dated
26.06.2026 passed by the Ld. District Judge, Imphal West in
Judl.Misc.(Execution) Case No. 41 of 2026 [Ref: Execution Case No. 1
of 2023] whereby the application of the State appellant challenging
maintainability of Execution Case No. 1 of 2023 has been challenged. It
is stated that the State respondent [to be referred as Judgement Debtors
(JDs)] and the respondent herein, i.e., M/S The Simplex Infrastructures
Ltd. [Decree Holder (DH)] executed an agreement on 03.01.2006 for
construction of the Legislative Assembly Complex. The sole arbitrator (
Hon’ble Justice Gupta (Retired), Supreme Court of India) passed an
order dated 12.01.2023 making an award in favour of DH. The DH filed
Execution Case No. 1 of 2023 on 25.09.2023. It is also stated that a
signed copy of arbitration award on 01.02.2023 was furnished to the
Page 1|4
counsel appearing on behalf of JDs (State appellant) who in turn
furnished the same to the State authority. Earlier State authority has filed
Judl. Misc. Case No. 40 of 2023 for condonation of delay and the same
was dismissed vide order dated 03.08.2024 on the ground that Section
5 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable in consideration
condonation of delay under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
[3] Mr. M. Devananda, learned Addl. A.G., submits that the order
dated 03.08.2024 passed by the Ld. District Judge, Imphal West in
Judl.Misc.Case No. 40 of 2023 is being challenged before this Court and
the same is part heard before the Division Bench being Arbitration
Appeal No. 1 of 2024. Learned Addl. A.G. has pointed out that the main
ground for challenge of the maintainability of the Execution Case No. 1
of 2023 filed by the DH is on the ground that the signed copy of arbitral
award dated 12.01.2023 was furnished to JDs vide another copy signed
on 28.03.2026 and delivered on 06.04.2026 to Mr. N. Ashok Kumar,
Commissioner (Works), Government of Manipur. It is stated that in terms
of Section 32 of the Act, the arbitral award concludes only on 06.04.2026
and hence execution case No. 1 of 2023 filed on 29.05.2023 is not
maintainable, as the same was filed before the termination arbitral
proceeding. Another point raised in the petition is that reading together
the provisions of Section 2(1)(h) and Section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act,
the signed arbitral award has to be furnished to the party and not to the
counsel and the same was resigned on 28.03.2026 and was furnished
to the JDs only on 06.04.2026. However, application challenging
maintainability of execution case was rejected by the Ld. District Judge
in the impugned order dated 26.04.2026 mainly on the ground that: (i) in
Judl.Misc.Case No. 40 of 2023, JDs has already admitted receipt of the
certified copy of the arbitral award furnished to each counsel; (ii) Section
31(5) does not provide in a manner in which the award has to be
furnished to the party and such furnishing the same to the counsel for
the JDs will be treated as due compliance of Section 31(5).
Page 2|4
[4] Mr. M. Devananda, learned Addl. A.G., submits that the
finding of Ld. District Judge is erroneous and against the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of: (i) Benarsi Krishna
Commit. & Ors vs Karmyogi Shelters Pvt .Ltd reported as (2012) 9
SCC 496 para 15 where it has been especially mentioned stated that
having reference to Sections 31(5) and 34(2) of the Arbitration Act would
only mean the party himself and not his or her agent, or advocate
empowered to act on the basis of vakalatnama and held that the signed
copy of the arbitral award has to be furnished to the party itself; (ii) State
of Maharastra vs. Ark Builders Pvt. Ltd. [(2001) 4 SCC 616] para 17
states that Section 31(5) contemplates is not merely delivery of any kind
of the award but a copy of the award duly signed by the member of
arbitral tribunal; (iii) Motilal Agarwala vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
[2025 INSC 1062] where in para 24 & 25 relying on the case of Tecco
Trichy it is stated that the party as defined in Section 2(1)(h) of the Act
would be the party to arbitral agreement and who is able to take decision
making capacity to take further recourse to the award. It is submitted that
the Ld. District Judge, Imphal West has overlooked all these decisions
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
[5] However, Mr. M. Devananda, learned Addl. A.G. admitted
that in the appeal against 34 applications pending before the Division
Bench, there is no stay of the execution proceeding and Division Bench
has already directed to deposit 75% of the amount of the award. It is
stated that when the matter is part heard before the Division Bench, the
appeal against the State has deposited Rs. 16,26,95,341/- and there is
no stay of the execution by the Division Bench. However, taking
advantage of the deposit, the DH moved an application before the
execution Court and vide orders dated 02.05.2026 and 26.06.2026, Ld.
District Judge directed the counsel for JDs. to list of asset and property
of the JDs. It is prayed that when the matter is part heard before the
Division Bench in the appeal against 34 applications and if the amount
is released, it will cause inconvenience to the JD and prayed that the
execution proceeding be stayed.
Page 3|4
[6] Issue notice.
[7] Mr. SD. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent (DH) on VC accepts notice on behalf of the sole respondent
and prays for two weeks’ time for filing counter affidavit. However, he
opposes the prayer for stay of execution case.
[8] This Court makes it clear that respondent is not on caveat
and objection to the prayer for interim relief would be considered by this
Court at the instance of a person who is not on caveat. This Court has
considered the materials on record, provisions of law and decisions cited
(supra). The issues raised in the present petition are that whether:
(i) whether furnishing of a signed copy of the arbitral
award to the counsel representing a party and upon
counsel handing over the same to the party, will be
sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section
31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read
with the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited
supra?;
(ii) whether the arbitral proceeding will culminate on
06.04.2026 when Mr. Ashok Kumar, Commissioner
(Works), Government of Manipur received signed
copy of the award?
[9] Considering the issues involved in the present case, till next
date no coercive action be initiated against JD in Execution Case No. 1
of 2023.
[10] List this case before the roster bench on 23.07.2026.
[11] Furnish a copy of this order to the learned counsel appearing
for the parties during the course of the day by whatsapp or any available
mode.
Digitally signed by
KH. JOSHUA KH. JOSHUA
MARING JUDGE
MARING Date: 2026.07.08
14:03:00 +05'30'
Kh. Joshua Maring
Page 4|4
