TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the objections to the arbitral award under Section 34(2)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 warranted interference with the award. (ii) Whether the arbitrator lacked power to grant interest on the awarded amount.
Issue (i): Whether the objections to the arbitral award under Section 34(2)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 warranted interference with the award.
Analysis: The award was considered to be a unanimous award rendered by a three-member tribunal, including the nominee of the appellant. The reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge rejecting the objections were found to be cogent. The tribunal had taken into account the site conditions and the reciprocal obligations of the parties under the contract, and no infirmity or illegality in the rejection of the objections was found.
Conclusion: The objections to the arbitral award did not merit interference.
Issue (ii): Whether the arbitrator lacked power to grant interest on the awarded amount.
Analysis: The decision relied upon by the appellant was examined and found inapplicable to the facts of the case. The learned Single Judge had correctly distinguished that precedent, and no ground was found to upset the award on the question of interest.
Conclusion: The arbitrator's grant of interest was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the impugned order refusing to set aside the arbitral award was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 is not warranted where the award is supported by cogent reasons and no legal infirmity is shown, and a distinguishable precedent cannot displace the award on the question of interest.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
