Dismissed¶22

The Executive Engineer, v. M/S Murari Lal Contractor

Rajasthan HC13 Mar 2026CMA/685/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court Jaipur DB CMA 685/2023 decided 13/03/2026; Executive Engineer PWD Todabheem Karauli v M/s Murari Lal Contractor; Section 34 and Section 34(3) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; Commercial Court Alwar order 05.07.2022 limitation rejection; appeal dismissed on same terms as CMA 683/2023 order dated 10.11.2025; Union of India v Popular Construction Co (2001) 8 SCC 470 relied upon; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal was dismissed on the same terms as the companion appeal and all pending applications stand disposed of. ¶22

The Executive Engineer, Vs M/S Murari Lal Contractor — Arbitration | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:10642-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 685/2023

¶4

The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Todabheem, Tehsil Todabheem, District Karauli.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Murari Lal Contractor, S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, R/o Kusai, Post Raipur, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawaimadhopur.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kailash Kumawat.

¶10

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶11

Order

¶12

13/03/2026

¶13

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:

¶14

"1. Heard.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[2026:RJ-JP:10642-DB]

¶19

[CMA-685/2023]

¶20

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.

¶21

The appeal is dismissed both, on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of."

¶22

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.

¶23

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶24

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶25

28-ZEESHAN/TUSHAR

The Executive Engineer, v. M/S Murari Lal Contractor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer, v. M/S Murari Lal Contractor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Parnami Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

M/S Bharat Kirana Bhandar Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S. Bhawani Silicate Industries Vs Union of India

The Executive Engineer, Vs M/S Murari Lal Contractor

The Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs Bhanwar Lal S/O Shri Kana Ram

Dr. Mujahid Salim S/O Shri Abdul Hai Sogani, Vs M/S Nazir Muneer Kagji