##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2007/2023

Parsa Kente Collieries Limited

----Appellant

Versus

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Gupta, Senior Advocate

assisted by Mr. Sandeep Pathak,

Mr. Abhisaar Bairagi,

Ms. Ausaf Ayyub,

Ms. Shweta Chouhan,

Mr. Rachit Somani, Mr. Arnav Singh

For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate

assisted by Mr. Adhiraj Modi

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

Order

05/02/2026

Mr. Sudhir Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

appellant has invited our attention to the judgment passed in the

case of Gayatri Balasamy Vs. M/s. ISG Novasoft

Technologies Limited [Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C)

Nos.15336-15337/2021], to submit that learned Commercial

Court has erred in setting aside the complete award and the

additional award based on accepting of the objections relating to

the respondent’s claim Nos.2, 4, 6, 7 & 8. He submits that if the

claims have been set aside, the entire award would not be set

aside in view of law as laid down in the case of Gayatri

Balasamy (supra). He further submits that learned Commercial

Court ought to have upheld the claim Nos.1, 3, 5 & 9. He submits

(Uploaded on 09/02/2026 at 03:50:09 PM)

(Downloaded on 10/02/2026 at 10:31:37 PM)

(2 of 3) [CMA-2007/2023]

that learned Commercial Court has also erred in setting aside the

additional arbitral award.

Per contra, Mr. R.K. Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the respondent submits that after the judgment

passed in the case of Gayatri Balasamy (supra), learned

Commercial Court ought to have passed judgment setting aside

the award to the extent of claim Nos.2, 4, 6, 7 & 8 alone. He

further submits that while this Court is examining the appeal of

the appellant with reference to setting aside the claim Nos.2, 4, 6,

7 & 8 as well as the additional arbitral award, the respondent

would have a right also to assert that the objections, which have

been set aside by learned Commercial Court relating to claim

Nos.1, 3, 5 & 9 should also be examined and the respondent

presses its objections, which should also be examined in the

present appeal. He submits that for the said purpose, no cross-

objections are required to be separately filed in the present

appeal. He further submits that as the entire award was set aside,

there was no occasion for the respondent to have raised

objections/filed appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 relating to the upholding of the claim Nos.1,

3, 5 & 9.

He relies on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the cases of Ravinder Kumar Sharma Vs. State of

Assam and Others, (1999) 7 SCC 435 and Prabhakar Gones

prabhu Navelkar (Dead) through Legal Representatives and

Others Vs. Saradchandra Suria Prabhu Navelkar (Dead)

through Legal Representatives and Others, (2020) 20 SCC

465

(Uploaded on 09/02/2026 at 03:50:09 PM)

(Downloaded on 10/02/2026 at 10:31:37 PM)

(3 of 3) [CMA-2007/2023]

List this case for hearing on 24.03.2026.

(SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ

N.GANDHI/RAJAT/147

(Uploaded on 09/02/2026 at 03:50:09 PM)

(Downloaded on 10/02/2026 at 10:31:37 PM)