[2026:RJ-JD:8427]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 5053/2011 State Of Rajasthan through the Executive Engineer, Public Work Department, National Highway No.8, Rajsamand Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Appellant Versus M/s Consulting Engineers Group Ltd., E-12 Moji Colony, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Ms. Aishwarya Anand Mr. Tushar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

13/02/2026

1. The present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1996”) has been filed by the State Government, challenging the order dated 04.08.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Udaipur, in Civil Miscellaneous Case No.56/07 “State of Rajasthan v. M/s Consulting Engineers Group Ltd.”, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was rejected, and the challenge to the arbitral award was dismissed.

2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent was awarded the work of survey, investigation and project preparation for roads, bridges and culverts for the Udaipur Bypass on NH-8, starting from kilometer 263/400 and terminating at kilometer 278/0.

3. As per the appellant, the work was to be completed by 30.08.1990, however, it was actually completed on 06.12.1990, and even then it was found to be incomplete, due to which, certain bills were not paid. The respondent, being aggrieved against the non-payment sought for appointment of Arbitrator and, thereafter, Mr. S.R. Mehta was appointed as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties vide order dated 21.12.1995 issued by the Chief Engineer (PWD). Post consideration of the claim, the Arbitrator vide its award dated 15.11.2004, held the respondent entitled for a sum of Rs.5,02,098/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

4. Against the award so passed, the appellant preferred an application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 for setting aside the award and, along with the same, filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 43 of the Act of

1996, explaining the reasons for delay in filing the appeal.

5. Learned District Judge proceeded to adjudicate the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and vide its order dated 04.08.2011, refused to condone the gross delay of 1460 days in filing the appeal and consequently the appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved against the same, the present appeal under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 has been filed. 6.Learned counsel for the appellant- Ms. Aishwarya Anand submits that the dispute pertains to the year 1990; Arbitrator was appointed in the year 1995 and, thereafter, the claim was filed when the Act of 1996 came into force, however, the learned District Judge, while deciding the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, treated the appeal to be under the then existing Arbitration Act of

1940 and not under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. Counsel further referred to Section 85 of the Act of 1996, which is the repeal and saving clause while asserting that if the parties agreed that the Act of 1996 shall apply in relation to the arbitration proceedings, which commenced on or after the Act of 1996, came into force, then the provisions of Act of 1996 were to be applied and not the provisions of Act of 1940. He asserts that both the parties have admittedly agreed for undertaking the proceedings under the Act of 1996, however, the learned Court below has proceeded to decide the issue of limitation as per the Act of 1940. He submits that the order impugned is ex facie illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside while remanding the matter back to the learned District Judge a direction be issued to decide the issue of limitation in consonance with the provisions applicable as per the Act of 1996.

6. Per contra, Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned S