https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161138 An arbitral award was challenged on grounds of misconstruction of sale contracts, lack of jurisdiction over a counterclaim for vehicles removed by the company, absence of evidence, unsupported ground rent, and excessive costs. The Supreme Court stated that judicial interference is confined to limited grounds and that an error of law must appear on the face of the award or an incorporated document; mere disagreement with the arbitrator's construction of evidence was insufficient. It also held that the counterclaim was within the arbitration clause, the findings on the vehicles were supported by oral and documentary material, the ground-rent award disclosed no legal infirmity, and the costs award involved a discretionary assessment with no perversity shown. The award was therefore sustained. en-us Tue, 05 Jan 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 May 2020 13:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161138 An arbitral award was challenged on grounds of misconstruction of sale contracts, lack of jurisdiction over a counterclaim for vehicles removed by the company, absence of evidence, unsupported ground rent, and excessive costs. The Supreme Court stated that judicial interference is confined to limited grounds and that an error of law must appear on the face of the award or an incorporated document; mere disagreement with the arbitrator's construction of evidence was insufficient. It also held that the counterclaim was within the arbitration clause, the findings on the vehicles were supported by oral and documentary material, the ground-rent award disclosed no legal infirmity, and the costs award involved a discretionary assessment with no perversity shown. The award was therefore sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Jan 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161138