<?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>1963 (4) TMI 76 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172792</link>
    <description>A governmental contract may be validly formed through written correspondence if the authorised officer&#039;s acceptance and incorporated conditions substantially comply with the statutory formality required for contracts made on behalf of the State, and the arbitration clause within that contract can therefore support a reference. An award is also open to challenge for an error of law apparent on its face unless the disputed legal question was specifically and finally referred to arbitration. On that basis, incidental expenses and interest were treated as legally unsustainable, while the principal loss claim was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:37:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395364" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (4) TMI 76 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172792</link>
      <description>A governmental contract may be validly formed through written correspondence if the authorised officer&#039;s acceptance and incorporated conditions substantially comply with the statutory formality required for contracts made on behalf of the State, and the arbitration clause within that contract can therefore support a reference. An award is also open to challenge for an error of law apparent on its face unless the disputed legal question was specifically and finally referred to arbitration. On that basis, incidental expenses and interest were treated as legally unsustainable, while the principal loss claim was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172792</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>