Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 12 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation (Petitioner/Appellant) vs. Continental Engineering Corporation Limited (Respondent).
  • Award: Arbitral award dated 20 December 2017, passed by a majority of 2:1.
  • Subsequent filings:
  • 16 March 2018: Respondent filed Arbitration Application No. 29 of 2018 before Rajasthan State Commercial Court (District Level), Jaipur under Section 10(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, seeking to set aside the award.
  • 22 October 2018: Appellant filed an application seeking dismissal of the Section 34 application, arguing that the appropriate forum for an international commercial arbitration was the High Court of Rajasthan.
  • 22 November 2018: Commercial Court returned the application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, holding the High Court was the proper forum.
  • 10 December 2018: Respondent filed the application before the registry of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur.
  • 14 February 2019: Respondent filed a fresh application under Section 10(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 together with the original application.
  • 2 February 2022: Respondent filed written submissions and an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act before the High Court.
  • 2 March 2022: Learned Single Judge dismissed the Section 34 application, holding it was not maintainable and that no condonation of delay was filed.
  • Division Bench Order: On 21 August 2025, the Rajasthan High Court Division Bench set aside the Single Judge’s order, found the Section 34 application to be rightly filed, applied Section 14 to exclude time, and remitted the matter to the Single Judge for merits.
  • Arguments before Supreme Court:
  • Additional Solicitor General Ms. Aishwarya Bhati argued that the Division Bench should not have decided the Section 14 issue and that the Single Judge should first consider it.
  • Senior Counsel Mr. Anil Kher contended that the Section 34 application was not barred by time and that the only question was the applicability of Section 14 principles.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court modified the impugned order, directing that the Single Judge must first hear the Section 14 application (condonation of delay) after giving notice to the appellant.
  • Only if the Single Judge finds the time to be excluded and the Section 34 application to be within time should the merits be heard.
  • The appeal is disposed of in the terms of the modified order; the matter is remanded to the Single Judge for early disposal.
  • No order as to costs was made.
  • The Court also requested the Single Judge to expedite the hearing, noting the award dates back to 2017.

Topics: Arbitration, Section 34 Application, Section 14 Limitation