https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235789 An indemnity clause in a lease was construed as covering liabilities arising from the equipment, not a tax-related claim for creation of a fund and enhanced rentals, so the arbitral award was wrong on coverage. The claim was also held time-barred because limitation began when depreciation was first disallowed, and pendency of appeals did not suspend time; after remand by the tax appellate forum, the earlier reference basis became infructuous. Acceptance of residual value unconditionally amounted to accord and satisfaction. As the principal award failed, the interest and consequential monetary directions also could not stand, and the award was set aside in full. en-us Tue, 16 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Aug 2013 09:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235789 An indemnity clause in a lease was construed as covering liabilities arising from the equipment, not a tax-related claim for creation of a fund and enhanced rentals, so the arbitral award was wrong on coverage. The claim was also held time-barred because limitation began when depreciation was first disallowed, and pendency of appeals did not suspend time; after remand by the tax appellate forum, the earlier reference basis became infructuous. Acceptance of residual value unconditionally amounted to accord and satisfaction. As the principal award failed, the interest and consequential monetary directions also could not stand, and the award was set aside in full. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235789