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 arbitrator could award compensation for delay in completion of work when the contract expressly barred any claim for damages or compensation and confined the contractor to extension of time.
Analysis: The contract clause governing delay provided that, even where delay was attributable to the employer or its engineer-in-charge, the contractor would not be entitled to damages or compensation and could only seek extension of time. An arbitrator is bound by the contract and cannot travel outside its express terms. Where the contract prohibits compensation for delay, an award granting such compensation is contrary to the bargain between the parties and constitutes an error of jurisdiction. The award of pendente lite interest on that barred claim could not stand once the principal award itself was without jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The award of Rs. 9.5 lakhs under claim No. 1 and the interest awarded thereon were liable to be set aside; the remaining portions of the award were left undisturbed.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of the compensation and interest awarded for delay, while the balance of the award was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral award that grants compensation expressly prohibited by the contract is beyond jurisdiction and liable to be interfered with under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.