State Of Rajasthan vs M/S Atlanta Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 1571 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

          D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2537/2020

State Of Rajasthan
                                                                  ----Appellant
                                   Versus
M/s Atlanta Ltd.
                                                                ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, AAG assisted by Mr. Udit Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Maloo, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Abhimanyu Yaduvanshi, through video conferencing

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Order

12/02/2021

1. Matter comes up on an application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

2. It is contended by the counsel for the applicant-appellant

that with the same title another arbitration proceedings were

pending, which were decided in 2014 and an appeal against that

order was pending before the High Court. It is also contended that

after passing of the impugned order, when information was sought

from the Officer concerned, he informed that the appeal is already

pending. Due to the parties being the same and the dispute

pertaining to the same contract, there was confusion and

consequently, delay has been occurred in filing the appeal.

3. It is further contended that the respondent has concealed

the material facts from the arbitrator and on the similar lines has

obtained a second award even when there was a judgment of the

(2 of 2) [CMA-2537/2020]

High Court passed in the writ petition wherein it was held that the

Government is not bound by the order passed by the Committee.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the

application. It is contended that there is an inordinate delay of 393

days in filing the appeal. It is also contended that the fact as

asserted by the applicant-appellant with regard to the merits is

not true.

5. We have considered the submissions as above.

6. The serious allegations have been levelled against the

respondent, which are to the effect that he has concealed the

order passed by the High Court and the award is overlapping of

the earlier award.

7. Considering the above as also the fact that between the

same parties, two arbitration proceedings were pending pertaining

to the same contract, which consequently resulted in delay in filing

the appeal, we deem it proper to condone the delay in filing the

appeal.

8. The application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is

accordingly allowed.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant is directed to

supply copy of the compilation to Mr. N.K. Maloo, Sr. Advocate.

10. List on 26.02.2021.

11. Till the next date, respondent/s are directed not to proceed

with the execution petition.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J (PRAKASH GUPTA),J

Sunil Solanki/21

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)