[2025:RJ-JP:19546-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4445/2024 1. Kakkar Hotel Private Limited (Khpl), Through Its Executive Director Mr. Varun Vir Kakkar And Share Holders 1 C.e.b. Near Pwd Rest House, Alwar, Rajasthan 301001 2. Mr. Varun Vir Kakkar, Executive Director Of Kakkar Hotel Private Limited (Khpl) 1 C.e.b. Near Pwd Rest House, Alwar, Rajasthan 301001 3. Mr. Atal Vir Kakkar, Director And Share Holder Of Kakkar Hotel Private Limited (Khpl), 1 C.e.b. Near Pwd Rest House, Alwar, Rajasthan 301001 4. Mrs. Kiran Kakkar, Director And Share Holder Of Kakkar Hotel Private Limited (Khpl), 1 C.e.b. Near Pwd Rest House, Alwar, Rajasthan 301001 ----Appellants Versus Moroli Enterprises Private Limited (Mepl), Through Prem Raj Sharma Of Shri Buddha Ram Sharma, Aged About 77 Years, Director, (Mepl) From Its Registered Office At 302, Shyam Dham, D/68 Bani Park, Madho Singh Circle, Near Collectorate, Jaipur 302016 (Rajasthan) ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Cross Objection (Civil) No. 36/2024 1. Kakkar Hotel Private Limited (Khpl), Through Its Executive Director Mr. Varun Vir Kakkar And Share Holders, 1 C.e.b., Near Pwd Rest House, Alwar, Rajasthan-301001. 2. Mr. Varun Via Kakkar, Executive Director Of Kakkar Hotel Pvt. Ltd., (Khpl), 1 C.e.b. Near Pwd Rest House, Alwar, Rajasthan-301001. 3. Mr. Atal Vir Kakkar, Director And Share Holder Of Kakkar Hotel Pvt Ltd, (Khpl), 1 C.e.b. Near Pwd Rest House, Alwar, Rajasthan-301001. 4. Mrs. Kiran Kakkar, Director And Share Holder Of Kakkar Hotel Pvt. Ltd., (Khpl), 1 C.e.b. Near Pwd Rest House, Alwar, Rajasthan-301001. [2025:RJ-JP:19546-DB] (2 of 4) [CMA-4445/2024] ----Appellants Versus Moroli Enterprises Private Limited (Mepl), (Mepl), Through Prem Raj Sharma S/o Shri Buddha Ram Sharma, Aged About 80 Years, Director, (Mepl), From Its Registered Officer At 302, Shyam Dham, D/68 Bani Park, Madho Singh Circle, Near Collectorate, Jaipur-302016 (Rajasthan.) ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajatshatru Mina Mr. Suveer Gaur Ms. Parneet Kaur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakhar Gupta Mr. Sanjay Sharma Ms. Priti Sharma Mr. Vijayant Yadav HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 08/05/2025 1. D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4445/2024 is filed by Kakkar Hotel Private Limited (Khpl) aggrieved of order dated 07.10.2024 passed by Commercial Court No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur dismissing the objection filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) being time barred. 2. D.B. Cross Objection No.36/2024 is filed by the respondent- Moroli Enterprises Private Limited (Mepl) raising a grievance that the legal issue raised with regard to date of filing to be considered were not dealt with. 3. The brief facts are that the parties on 01.05.2019 entered into Memorandum of Understanding for transfer of shareholding and buyout of management rights to the extent of 50%. For [2025:RJ-JP:19546-DB] (3 of 4) [CMA-4445/2024] resolving the dispute inter se, the parties initiated arbitration proceedings, culminated in award dated 30.10.2023. On an application filed by the claimant, the award was amended on 20.12.2023. The copy of the award was supplied to the parties on 29.12.2023. The objection under Section 34 of the Act was filed on 04.04.2024. Vide impunged order, the objection was dismissed on the ground of having been filed fourteen days after expiry of three months. 4. Section 34(3) of the Act is reproduced below:- “An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal: Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.” 5. The limitation provided for filing the objections under Section 34 of the Act is ninety days and the Court can condone the delay upto thirty days. 6. In the present case, it was explained that delay of fourteen days occurred as one of the director was suffering from cancer and ultimately died. 7. Under the proviso delay upto thirty days can be condoned and delay in present case as pointed out by Court is of fourteen days. [2025:RJ-JP:19546-DB] (4 of 4) [CMA-4445/2024] 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation & Anr. reported in 2010 INSC 128 held that a liberal view should be taken for condoning the delay for a shorter period and a strict approach is required where the delay is inordinate. 9. In the cross objections filed, the issue raised is that the date of filing the objection shall not be considered on 04.04.2024 but the date when the defects were cured. This issue was not gone into by the Commercial Court. 10. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to Commercial Court to decide the issue of limitation after dealing with the issue that whether date of filing of objection would be 04.04.2024 or the date when the defects were cured. 11. The cross objection stands disposed of. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Sudeepak/65-66-S