TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the arbitral award was liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction to grant demurrage charges under the agreement; (ii) Whether the award of interest at 15% was excessive and required reduction.
Issue (i): Whether the arbitral award was liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction to grant demurrage charges under the agreement.
Analysis: The challenge to the award on the ground that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to award demurrage charges was examined with reference to the award, the agreement, and the findings of the High Court. The objection was not accepted.
Conclusion: The award on demurrage charges was upheld.
Issue (ii): Whether the award of interest at 15% was excessive and required reduction.
Analysis: The rate of interest awarded by the arbitrator was found to be excessive on its face. The interest component was therefore reduced while leaving the decree interest unaffected.
Conclusion: The interest awarded by the arbitrator was reduced to 9%.
Final Conclusion: The awards were substantially confirmed, with interference limited to reduction of the arbitral interest component.
Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral award will be sustained where the jurisdictional objection fails, but a plainly excessive interest component may be modified by the Court.
TaxTMI 
