Page No.# 1/3 GAHC030008732025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Arb.A./6/2025 National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (NHIDCL) and Anr. represented by Managing Director, New Delhi - 110001 2: The General Manager (P) NHIDC VERSUS Sh. Saikunga and 8 Ors. R/o Vairengte, Kolasib District 2:Smt. Rebeck Lalhmingliani 3:Sh. Lalzakhama 4:Sh. K. Kailiana 5:Smt. Lalrintluangi 6:Sh. Lalzuithanga 7:Smt. Marian Lalawmpuii 8:Sh. Lalremsanga 9:The Competent Authority for Land Acquisitio Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Paliwal Advocate for the Respondent : Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA O R D E R 20.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Subham Paliwal, learned counsel for the appellants (NHIDCL). No one appears for the respondents. 2. The appellants have put to challenge the judgment and order dated 02.09.2025 passed in Arbitration Petition No.11/2023 by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolasib, by which the appellants’ appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against the Arbitral Award dated 23.09.2023 in Arbitration Case No.NH- 306/KLB/5/Arb-2023, was dismissed. 3. The appellants’ counsel submits that while the appellants’ appeal under Section 34 of the Act had been dismissed, a cross-appeal filed by all the respondents, vide Arbitration Petition No.12/2024, was disposed of on 03.02.2026 by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolasib, by remanding the case to the sole Arbitrator, for re-consideration of the matter afresh. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants thus prays that he may be allowed to withdraw the present appeal. 5. This court is surprised to learn that the same Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolasib could have passed two different orders in respect of two different appeals, arising out of the same Arbitral Award. This Court is even Page No.# 3/3 more surprised to learn that the appellants herein has not made a mention of the pendency of the Arbitration Petition No.12/2024, which had been disposed of on 03.02.2026, i.e. after disposal of the Arbitration Petition No.11/2024, vide judgment and order dated 02.09.2025. The appellants had a duty to be fair to the Court and should not have played “hide and seek” with facts with this Court. 6. The judgment and order dated 03.02.2026 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolasib has been brought to my notice and a perusal of the same shows that the matter has been remanded back to the sole Arbitrator to re-consider the matter. However, it is noticed that the Arbitral Award dated 23.09.2023 in Arbitration Case No.NH-306/KLB/5/Arb-2023 has not been set aside. 7. It is surprising that the First Appellant Court did not dispose of the appeal and the cross-appeal at the same time and had instead passed two differing orders in the appeal and cross-appeal, arising out of the same Arbitral Award, which could have been taken care of, if the same had been disposed of by a common order. 8. As the appellants have prayed for withdrawal of the case due to the above developments, the prayer is allowed. 9. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. JUDGE Comparing Assistant