M/s Murari Lal Contractor v. Popular Construction Co
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The appeal is dismissed both, on the ground of limitation as
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:10642-DB] (2 of 2) [CMA-685/2023] down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Popular…
- Para 44. The appeal is dismissed both, on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. "
Judgment
M/s Murari Lal Contractor, S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, R/o Kusai, Post Raipur, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawaimadhopur. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kailash Kumawat. HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR 13/03/2026 Order
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: "1. Heard.
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.
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 [2026:RJ-JP:10642-DB] (2 of 2) [CMA-685/2023] 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.
Operative part
The appeal is dismissed both, on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. "
2. 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. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 28-ZEESHAN/TUSHAR
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is dismissed both, on the ground of limitation as
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 34.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.