Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5929 (RAJ)

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, v. M/S MURARI LAL CONTRACTOR

CMA/685/2023 · 2026-03-13

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Vinit Kumar Mathur

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:10642-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 685/2023 The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Todabheem, Tehsil Todabheem, District Karauli. ----Appellant Versus M/s Murari Lal Contractor, S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, R/o Kusai, Post Raipur, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawaimadhopur. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kailash Kumawat. HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 13/03/2026 1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 683/2023, involving the same parties and arising out of the same matter, has already been decided by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 10.11.2025. The order dated 10.11.2025 reads as under: "1. Heard. 2. This is an appeal preferred to challenge the order passed by the Commercial Court, Alwar dated 05.07.2022, whereby it rejected the objections raised belatedly under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act of 1996’). After the rejection of the objections on the ground of limitation, the present appeal has been preferred after a delay of 137 days, which reflects the casual approach of the State Authorities in dealing with the cases. 3. The order passed by the Commercial Court is strictly in terms of Section 34(3) of the Act of 1996 and considering the law laid [2026:RJ-JP:10642-DB] (2 of 2) [CMA-685/2023] down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Popular Construction Co., reported in (2001) 8 SCC 470, therefore, we find that the order even on merits was not required to be interfered with. 4. The appeal is dismissed both, on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of." 2. Accordingly, this appeal is also dismissed in the light of the decision rendered vide order dated 10.11.2025 on the same terms. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 28-ZEESHAN/TUSHAR