Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8199 (RAJ)

ANAMIKA CONDUCTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, v. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LIMITED,

CFA/823/2026 · 2026-05-21

Ashutosh Kumar, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:21496-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil First Appeal No. 823/2026 Anamika Conductors Private Limited, Corporate Office At B-70, Upasna House, 2Nd Floor, Rajendra Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur, Through Its Director, Shri Sharad Bakliwal. ----Appellant Versus Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Jaipur, Through Its Superintending Engineer (Proc-I), Old Power House, Near Ram Mandir, Bani Park, Jaipur, (Raj.). ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Ms. Alankrita Sharma with Mr. Madhusudan Singh Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. LL Gupta HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 21/05/2026 1. Issue notice to the respondent. 2. Mr. LL Gupta, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent. 3. Formal notice need not be issued. 4. Heard. 5. One of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that while an issue was framed relating to the limitation however, the learned Commercial Court has failed to actually examine the limitation period and merely on the basis of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court without calculating the period, has proceeded to decide the issue of limitation. [2026:RJ-JP:21496-DB] (2 of 2) [CFA-823/2026] 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that mathematically calculating, the suit was barred by limitation, in spite of the period to be condoned in terms of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the written submissions, the appellant had not taken this argument and did not dispute the period of exclusion. 8. We find that a specific issue has been framed by the learned Commercial Court but the same has not been examined on merits and no calculation of the period too has been made by the learned Commercial Court. 9. Having heard both the parties, we remand the case back to the learned Commercial Court to give a finding on issue No.4 afresh. 10. The appeal is disposed of. 11. Pending application(s), also stand disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ RAHUL/TANISHA/9