M/S VIKAS EXPORT v. M/S SHREE MARUTI ART AND CRAFT
CMA/2476/2025 · 2025-08-04
Anand Sharma, K R Shriram
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 20814 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 20814 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:29620-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2476/2025 M/s Vikas Export, Plot No. 182A, Hsiidc Sector-3, Imt Manesar Gurugram, Haryana-122050 Through Its Authorised Signatory. ----Appellant Versus M/s Shree Maruti Art And Craft, D-150, Ambabari, Near Durga Mandir, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302039 Through Its Sole Proprietor Mr. Sushil Maheshwari. ----Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Akarsh Mathur, Mr. Tej Pratap Singh & Mr. Harshil Bansal For Respondent : Mr. Mohit Khandelwal with Mr. Aditya Gupta & Mr. Pranav Sharma HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Order 04/08/2025
1. Laying challenge to order dated 17th April 2025 passed by Commercial Court No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-IInd, Jaipur as well as award dated 14th March 2024, passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facility Council, Jaipur, this appeal has been filed by appellant under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act of 1996’) read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that earlier, against award dated 14th March 2024 passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facility Council, appellant filed objections under section 34 of the
[2025:RJ-JP:29620-DB] (2 of 3) [CMA-2476/2025] Act of 1996. However while filing such objections, appellant failed to comply with section 19 of The Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short ‘the MSMED Act’) inasmuch as mandatory pre-deposit of 75% of the award amount was not deposited. Consequently, objections under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 filed by the appellant were rejected by the Commercial Court vide order dated 13th August 2024.
3. It is not disputed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellant that order dated 13th August 2024 was never challenged by appellant, either by way of an appeal or otherwise.
4. It is also a matter of record that no liberty whatsoever was granted in order dated 13th August 2024 by the Commercial Court permitting appellant to re-file the objections.
5. Thereafter, appellant filed fresh objections against the award dated 14th March 2024 on 18th November 2024. Since the fresh objections were filed after the expiry of 120 days from the date of award, they were time barred. Accordingly, Commercial Court dismissed the fresh objections filed by appellant on the ground of limitation vide order dated 17th April 2025.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellant submitted that the award was without jurisdiction and no opportunity of hearing was given to appellant before passing the award.
7. We find that all such objections were raised at the time of filing first objections, which were dismissed by the Court below vide order dated 13th August 2024. The order dated 13th August 2024 has attained finality as it was never challenged by appellant.
8.
Learned counsel for appellant has utterly failed to show any provisions or legal right entitling the appellant to file second
[2025:RJ-JP:29620-DB] (3 of 3) [CMA-2476/2025] objections after dismissal of the first. Even otherwise, in the terms of express provision of Section 34(3) of the Act of 1996, no objections under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 can be filed before the Commercial Court by the aggrieved person after expiry of 120 days from the date of the award. The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to objections under Section 34 of the Act of 1996.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for appellant prayed for converting the instant appeal in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
10. We do not find any such provision for converting this appeal and even otherwise, if appellant intended to invoke writ jurisdiction, it could have done so at the initial stage.
11. In view of the above, we find no merit and substance in the appeal filed by appellant. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- which shall be deposited by appellant with the office of Secretary, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur within a period of one month from today.
(ANAND SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR-RAHUL/5