https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252271 An arbitral award was upheld against a Section 34 challenge because the contract documents, read as a whole, showed that the bidder had accepted responsibility for statutory levies, including excise duty, sales tax and service tax. The Court reiterated that interference under Section 34 is narrow, the arbitral tribunal remains the primary fact-finder, and courts cannot rewrite a concluded bargain or substitute a different commercial allocation of liability. The challenge on patent illegality and public policy failed because the award was neither contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law nor otherwise vitiated by a recognised ground for setting aside. en-us Mon, 22 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252271 An arbitral award was upheld against a Section 34 challenge because the contract documents, read as a whole, showed that the bidder had accepted responsibility for statutory levies, including excise duty, sales tax and service tax. The Court reiterated that interference under Section 34 is narrow, the arbitral tribunal remains the primary fact-finder, and courts cannot rewrite a concluded bargain or substitute a different commercial allocation of liability. The challenge on patent illegality and public policy failed because the award was neither contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law nor otherwise vitiated by a recognised ground for setting aside. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 22 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252271