IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 25.08.2025 Pronounced on : 23.09.2025 Union of India through Chief Engineer and others ...Appellants Versus M/s Ram Avtar Gupta ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Wazir Singh, Advocate for the applicant/respondent.

*****

VIKAS SURI, J.

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum- Presiding Judge, Exclusive Commercial Court at Gurugram, exercising jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commercial Courts Act’), whereby two applications, one under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) and the other application under Section 14 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, were disposed of by a common order. The former application has been allowed whereas the latter has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that an Arbitral Award dated 03.08.2019 came to be passed by the sole Arbitrator, arising from agreement No.17/EE/KCD/2010-11, regarding shed for 200 (150+50) milch animal with automatic feeding, cleaning, milking and data recording system at CIRB Hisar, including internal electrical installation. 2.1 The appellants moved an application before the Court of learned District Judge, Karnal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Arbitration Act’) for setting aside of the arbitral award dated 03.08.2019 (supra). The said objection petition was opposed by the respondent-contractor. The learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide order dated 03.07.2023 (Annexure A-3), ordered return of the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, for want of territorial jurisdiction.

2.2 The appellants, after receipt of the original objection petition on 01.09.2023, presented the same before the Commercial Court at Gurugram on 11.09.2023. On re-filing the objection petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the same has been contested by the respondent-contractor by filing reply, wherein certain preliminary objections have been raised.

2.3 The main bone of contention being that re-filing of the supra objections before the Commercial Court at Gurugram was beyond the prescribed limitation and hence, the same were barred by law. On the same lines, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was also filed stating that the petition was liable to be rejected. The appellants filed reply to the said application and thereafter, moved an application under Section 14 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Limitation Act’) stating that the objection petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was returned by the learned Court at Karnal, for want of jurisdiction, thus, prayer was for exclusion of the time consumed in the said proceedings, while computing the period of limitation for re-filing the said objection petition before the competent Court at Gurugram.

2.4 It is further the case of the appellants that on the same date, the execution petition with similar cause title was also pending before the said Court at Karnal. The clerk of the counsel of the appellants came to know about the date of the case, having been adjourned to 02.08.2023. When the counsel for the appellants appeared on the said date, it transpired that the objection petition had already been ordered to be returned for presentation to the competent Court at Gurugram having jurisdiction in the matter, vide order dated 03.07.2023. Copy of the order dated 03.07.2023 was obtained on the same day and the Additional Solicitor General of India was approached with the request to mark the matter to the Central Government Standing Counsel before this Court. The record of the case was handed over to the appointed counsel on 16.08.2