<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2003 (9) TMI 539 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108305</link>
    <description>An arbitral award is vulnerable where it contains irreconcilable findings on the same foundational issue, especially the issue of breach of contract, because such self-contradiction amounts to legal misconduct and a jurisdictional excess. The award here treated the Government as in breach for the contractor&#039;s claim, yet also accepted a contrary claim based on contractor default, while ignoring material contractual terms and relevant facts. The Court held that a tribunal cannot sustain mutually inconsistent conclusions on liability, and that awards founded on irrelevant considerations or non-application of mind fall within limited supervisory review. The contrary award could not stand, and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2020 13:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145322" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 539 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108305</link>
      <description>An arbitral award is vulnerable where it contains irreconcilable findings on the same foundational issue, especially the issue of breach of contract, because such self-contradiction amounts to legal misconduct and a jurisdictional excess. The award here treated the Government as in breach for the contractor&#039;s claim, yet also accepted a contrary claim based on contractor default, while ignoring material contractual terms and relevant facts. The Court held that a tribunal cannot sustain mutually inconsistent conclusions on liability, and that awards founded on irrelevant considerations or non-application of mind fall within limited supervisory review. The contrary award could not stand, and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108305</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>