<?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>1993 (1) TMI 288 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160699</link>
    <description>An arbitrator&#039;s power to award pre-reference interest was examined against the Interest Act, 1839 and the later enlargement under the Interest Act, 1978. The text notes that pre-reference interest was not generally available under the 1839 Act, while the 1978 Act expanded that position. However, the award granted only a lump sum as interest without identifying the period or rate, and the record did not show whether it covered only pre-reference interest or also pendente lite interest. In those circumstances, it was considered unsafe to treat the award as necessarily contrary to the law then in force, and the matter was not reopened after a long delay.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Dec 2013 12:28:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340420" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (1) TMI 288 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160699</link>
      <description>An arbitrator&#039;s power to award pre-reference interest was examined against the Interest Act, 1839 and the later enlargement under the Interest Act, 1978. The text notes that pre-reference interest was not generally available under the 1839 Act, while the 1978 Act expanded that position. However, the award granted only a lump sum as interest without identifying the period or rate, and the record did not show whether it covered only pre-reference interest or also pendente lite interest. In those circumstances, it was considered unsafe to treat the award as necessarily contrary to the law then in force, and the matter was not reopened after a long delay.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160699</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>