https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128883 An arbitral award was upheld because the arbitrator gave a plausible construction of Clause 7.2 and found it did not apply to outright refusal of supply in the first quarter or delayed supply in the second quarter. On that basis, the contractual compensation cap and Section 74 of the Contract Act did not limit the award for breaches falling outside the clause. The later quantified claim was also treated as permissible because the claimant had reserved the right to add or amend its statement of claim, and the objection had not been canvassed before the High Court. No ground for interference with the award was made out. en-us Wed, 09 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Aug 2016 11:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128883 An arbitral award was upheld because the arbitrator gave a plausible construction of Clause 7.2 and found it did not apply to outright refusal of supply in the first quarter or delayed supply in the second quarter. On that basis, the contractual compensation cap and Section 74 of the Contract Act did not limit the award for breaches falling outside the clause. The later quantified claim was also treated as permissible because the claimant had reserved the right to add or amend its statement of claim, and the objection had not been canvassed before the High Court. No ground for interference with the award was made out. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 09 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128883