[2025:RJ-JP:40435-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.265/2024 1. Principal Secretary, Through Principal Secretary To The Government, Public Health Engineering Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Janpath, Jaipur 2. Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Head Office, Jal Bhawan, Jaipur 3. Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Rural Division, Ajmer ----Appellants Versus M/s Ankit Construction “AA” Class, Government Contractor And Suppliers, Kayad Road, Village And Post Kayad, District Ajmer Through Its Proprietor Smt. Sita Devi Gurjar W/o Shri Ganga Ram Gurjar ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG assisted by Ms. Harshita For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 06/10/2025 1. The challenge is to the order passed by learned Judge, Commercial Court, Ajmer, whereby he has rejected the objections raised by the appellants on the ground that the objections have been raised beyond the period prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Admittedly, a copy of the award was received on 18.03.2019 by the appellants however, without giving any cogent reasons, the appeal under Section 34 of the Act was not preferred, within three months, as prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act. In fact, [2025:RJ-JP:40435-DB] (2 of 3) [CMA-265/2024] even after the expiry of three months, the appeal was filed after 157 days further delay on 22.11.2019. No application for condonation of delay was moved before the learned Commercial Court and even otherwise, the Commercial Court could have condoned the delay of thirty days only, which too stood expired. 3. Learned counsel has submitted that the opinion of the Department was obtained on 03.04.2019 and the comments of the Enquiry Officer were forwarded on 05.04.2019. Further, legal opinion was given on 11.06.2019 and decision to file objections under Section 34 of the Act was conveyed vide letter dated 24.10.2019 by the Deputy Legal Remembrancer, PHED Jaipur and accordingly, the objections were raised on 22.11.2019 and she, therefore, submits that delay in filing the objections cannot be said to be deliberate or intentional. 4. We find that while examining an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, we would not look into pleadings, which were not available before the concerned Commercial Court for dealing with the objections raised under Section 34 of the Act. In fact, under Section 37 of the Act, this Court would only look into the objections raised in the appeal, which has been filed in terms of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act and could also be examined with reference to the dismissal on the ground of being time barred, independent of Section 37, but we find that there is no application moved before the Commercial Court under Section 25 of the Limitation Act and since there was no prayer for condonation of delay nor there is an application for condonation of delay before us, the reasons for delay, as stated in the memo of appeal, cannot be gone into. [2025:RJ-JP:40435-DB] (3 of 3) [CMA-265/2024] 5. The appeal is found to be wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. 6. It may be noticed that on account of casual approach of Officers, if the State is put to suffer and face arbitration award, accountability must be fixed on such Officers who should be held liable for the loss to State exchequer, if any. 7. Leaving it open for the Authority to take appropriate measures, we dismiss the present appeal. 8. A copy of this order be sent to Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ DANISH USMANI /21