Bansal Generation Ltd. ...Respondent. Coram Hon'ble Mr Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Appellant : Ms Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr Basant Pal Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : M/s Rajeev Kumar Gupta and Kalaunta Devi, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.9.2023, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, vide which a petition filed by the appellant (original petitioner) under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was held to be barred by limitation and the benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act was not extended to it. (Parties shall hereinafter be 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:1427 referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Single Judge for convenience). 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that a dispute arose between the parties on the supply of transformers and their payment. The respondent took recourse to Chapter V of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) and raised a dispute before the Facilitation Council at Shimla. A notice was served upon the petitioner, and it filed a detailed reply. The council passed an order on 6.3.2017 and transferred the matter to the learned Arbitrator. The proceedings were conducted before the learned Arbitrator, who passed an award on 6.7.2018 for ₹2,11,871/ and a sum of ₹22,82,060/ minus ₹8,90,676/ i.e. ₹13,91,384/ along with interest at the rate of three times of the rate notified by Reserve Bank of India from time to time. The respondent was also held entitled to the cost of ₹70,000/. The respondent filed an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and a corrected award was passed on 3.11.2008 for a sum of ₹1,39,28,134/ and ₹1,16,39,307/ as on 30.6.2018 along with interest at the rate of three times of the rates notified by Reserve Bank of India from time to time. A cost of ₹70,000/ was also 3 2025:HHC:1427 awarded. The petitioner sought the opinion of its counsel on whether a writ petition could be filed for a waiver of the deposit of 75% of the disputed amount as required under Section 19 of the MSMED Act. The learned Advocate advised that a chance could be taken by filing a writ petition before the High Court for seeking a waiver of deposit of 75% of the awarded amount. A writ petition was filed before the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur on 15.1.2019, which was registered as CWP No. 1756 of 2019, and an interim order staying the execution of the award was passed on 22.1.2019. The respondent contested the writ petition, and it was withdrawn on 11.5.2022 because of the objection raised by the respondent regarding lack of maintainability. The learned counsel for the petitioner forwarded the copy of the judgment along with his opinion and advised the petitioner to file a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, at Shimla within 33 days. The matter was processed, and the Authorized Officer contacted the learned counsel on 3.6.2022, which was a holiday. Authorized Officer was advised by the learned counsel that the Courts were closing for summer vacation w.e.f. 4.6.2022 till 12.6.2022 and hence, the Authorized Officer should come on 13.6.2022 to file the objection. The officer visited the office of 4 2025:HHC:1427 learned counsel on 13.6.2022 and signed the objection petition under Section 34 of the