https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160272 The Supreme Court treated the controlling court in a consent arbitration as the competent forum for filing the award and held that an arbitrator could file the award suo motu where the Arbitration Act, 1940 imposed no prohibition. It also upheld interest from 7 June 1958 at 9% per annum, noting that the disputes, including interest, were referred to arbitration, the balance price had become payable on that date, and the contract did not exclude interest. The direction to refund excess railway freight was sustained because the objection that it had already been included in the balance price was not established. The objections to the award failed. en-us Fri, 28 Jan 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Jul 2020 10:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160272 The Supreme Court treated the controlling court in a consent arbitration as the competent forum for filing the award and held that an arbitrator could file the award suo motu where the Arbitration Act, 1940 imposed no prohibition. It also upheld interest from 7 June 1958 at 9% per annum, noting that the disputes, including interest, were referred to arbitration, the balance price had become payable on that date, and the contract did not exclude interest. The direction to refund excess railway freight was sustained because the objection that it had already been included in the balance price was not established. The objections to the award failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 28 Jan 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160272