https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218069 A court will not interfere with an unreasoned arbitral award under the Arbitration Act, 1940 unless it is shown to be patently perverse. On the materials before the arbitrator, the limitation objection could not defeat the challenge because the remand was confined to merits and the application bore a timely court stamp. The award was also upheld against objections on alleged perversity, tenancy consequences, interest, and excess of reference, since the tenancy direction had landlord consent, interest was not contractually barred, and the relief remained within the original claim. The alleged counterclaim and partner's letter were insufficient to invalidate the award, and the appellate court restored the award. en-us Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Oct 2012 18:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218069 A court will not interfere with an unreasoned arbitral award under the Arbitration Act, 1940 unless it is shown to be patently perverse. On the materials before the arbitrator, the limitation objection could not defeat the challenge because the remand was confined to merits and the application bore a timely court stamp. The award was also upheld against objections on alleged perversity, tenancy consequences, interest, and excess of reference, since the tenancy direction had landlord consent, interest was not contractually barred, and the relief remained within the original claim. The alleged counterclaim and partner's letter were insufficient to invalidate the award, and the appellate court restored the award. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218069