Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside part of a non-speaking arbitral award on the ground that the arbitrator had not considered the contractor's rebate letters and whether interference under the Arbitration Act, 1940 was permissible on that basis.
Analysis: The award was a non-speaking award, and the arbitrator stated that the pleadings and documentary and oral evidence had been considered. In such a case, the court's power to interfere is narrow and is confined to the grounds available under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, including misconduct, excess of jurisdiction, or error apparent on the face of the award. Interpretation of the contract, including the effect of exchanged correspondence and conditional rebate offers, was a matter for the arbitrator. In the absence of material showing that the relevant documents were ignored or that the contract barred adjudication of the claim, the High Court could not reappraise the evidence or infer non-consideration merely because a different view was possible.
Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in interfering with the award on the stated ground, and the arbitrator's award could not be set aside to that extent.