[2025:RJ-JP:44300-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2069/2023 Baid Leasing And Finance Company Limited, Registered Office At Baid House, 2nd Floor, 01 Tara Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur-06 Regional Office At Baid House, 2nd Floor, 01 Tara Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur-06 Through Authorized Signatory. ----Appellant Versus 1. Smt Mohari Devi Wife Of Shri Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Aged 72 Years, Resident Of 92, Ram Sagar Loharwada, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur(Rajasthan). 2. Manmohan Yadav Son Of Shri Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Aged 46 Years, Resident Of 92, Ram Sagar Loharwada, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur ----Respondents 3. Aarif Mohammed Madani Sole Arbitrator, Address At Office No.2, Floor No.3, Felicity Tower, Main Sahkar Road, Opposite Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, ----Proforma Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jitender Mituka For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 04/11/2025 1. For the reasons stated in the Application No.957/2023 filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay, the same is allowed 2. Learned counsel clearly states that the issue raised in the present appeal stands finally adjudicated by this Court vide order dated 18.09.2025 and the appeal was dismissed. 3. The issue raised in the present appeal being identical and the same would be governed by the judgment passed in D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2097/2023: Baid Leasing And Finance Company Limited Vs. Shivraj Samota and Ors. wherein, we have held as under: [2025:RJ-JP:44300-DB] (2 of 2) [CMA-2069/2023] "4. We notice that at the time, when the Arbitrator was appointed in the present case, the law as settled in the case of TRF Ltd. (supra) and Perkins Eastman Architects DPC (supra) was the law of the land. In spite thereto, the Arbitrator appointed was the Managing Director, which could not have been done in view of the law as it was at that relevant point of time even thereafter as well as on today, the law remains the same. Consistency of law, therefore, would apply equally to all the Judgments which have been rendered on the basis of the law which was existing on that time. Had there been a new appointment of Arbitrator during the pendency of this petition which would not have been examined by any Court of law, the situation would have been otherwise. In the present case, the decision was rendered by the Commercial Court on 23.06.2022 holding the said award to be in nullity in the eyes of law. 5. We also further notice that the said directions of further reference to apply prospectively to Arbitrator appointments is only with respect to apply to three-member- Tribunal and not otherwise. In the circumstances, the prospectivity law as laid down by the Larger Bench (supra) would not affect the award passed by the sole Arbitrator appointed by the Managing Director. 6. The order passed by the Commercial Court dated 23.06.2022, therefore, does not warrant any interference, also the objection raised under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act do not have any course, the civil miscellaneous appeal accordingly dismissed. 7. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of." 3. Keeping in view of the above, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed mutatis mutandis. 4. All pending applications also stands disposed of accordingly. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ GAURAV/32